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

When I was speaking the other night, I was making the point that, rather than provide the Australian people with sound economic management, this Liberal government has delivered a deficit blow-out of $26 billion over the forward estimates, debt at nearly $100 billion higher than was forecast in the 2013 PEFO, higher levels of spending, gross debt heading towards $550 billion by the end of the forward estimates and growth that is well and truly down since they came to office.

Two and a half years ago the new government promised new economic leadership. Prime Minister Abbott made this one of the principal priorities of his government. Over the course of his prime ministership, what we saw was the deficit double and an increase in public debt. To target that issue, the former Prime Minister and his government attacked the weak and vulnerable in our community. They sought to increase the Medicare co-payment. They sought to reduce pensions. They sought to increase fees for students and introduce $100,000 degrees.

Then, of course, we saw former Prime Minister Abbott toppled in a leadership spill, and in September last year Prime Minister Turnbull, too, promised new economic leadership. But what have we got from the new Prime Minister in terms of economic policy? Well, zip—nothing! No new economic plan for our nation.

The new Treasurer is clearly floundering in this new job. We saw last week at the National Press Club 46 minutes of nothing. The opportunity on the national stage for the new Treasurer to put to the Australian people a new economic plan for our nation to stimulate growth, to invest in infrastructure, to grow real wages, to reduce unemployment and to invest in jobs and all we got was rhetoric and spin—no plans for our nation's future.

As a result, what have we seen in terms of living standards? Living standards have been falling for six consecutive quarters. The real wages of Australians have been falling. It is becoming harder for Australian families and for pensioners to make ends meet. Capital expenditure has experienced a broad-based decline, and not just in the mining sector; consumer confidence and business confidence are at levels far lower than they were when the Liberals took office in 2013.

They have busied themselves by floating ideas about raising the GST. I have to say that this has become a farce, really, because I have no doubt that Treasurer Morrison initially went to the Press Club last week with the intention of talking about the Liberal's plans to increase the GST. When he became the Treasurer he was instructed by the Prime Minister to go out to work with the states on a new plan to increase the GST to 15 per cent, or to broaden its base. Then, at the last minute, the Prime Minister pulled the rug from underneath him. He pulled the rug and his support for an increase in the GST that, clearly, he and those opposite did want to do in order to raise additional revenue.

That left the Treasurer with nothing to say last week at the Press Club. Nothing at all to say about economic leadership and economic management. There is no doubt that the instability and the division that clearly exists within this government and the inward-looking focus of the Liberal Party is now affecting this government's ability to make decisions—to make tough calls when it comes to policy. And it is hurting Australians. It is hurting the Australian business community, because we have subdued growth and a lack of confidence—people are not willing to invest in businesses.

It is hurting Australian workers, because real wages are continuing to decline. We have unemployment increasing—it has jumped back up to 6 per cent again. And it is hurting those on fixed incomes, like pensioners, who have had their pensions cut and who have seen a decline in their purchasing power.

So we have seen a disastrous couple of budgets from the Abbott government, that they could not get through the parliament. Then they switched leaders to the new Prime Minister Turnbull, promising to deliver tax reform and to talk to the Australian public about tax reform. They put the GST on the agenda, then they removed it and now they have no economic plan. It is clear that the Abbott-Turnbull government is making up financial management as they go along. As the papers have so rightly suggested, they are desperately scrambling for any policy that will save them from further disastrous economic woe into the future.

Contrast that with the work of the opposition under the leadership of opposition leader, Bill Shorten. Labor has been busy over the last couple of years, consulting with the Australian public: working with business leaders, working with economists and academics, working with families and working with workers to ensure that we put together a set of tax reform packages and economic strategies that will deliver growth and an increase in jobs in our economy, to ensure that we transition from the mining boom to an innovation-led recovery in our economy and, ultimately, over time to grow our economy and increase living standards.

Labor has had a clear set of policies on tax reform for the last six months. We consulted about them, we debated them and we made decisions about them. We have subjected them to the scrutiny of the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, and the Parliamentary Budget Office has come back with reports on all of our policies, indicating how much additional revenue they would raise for the budget. I must say that in terms of the electoral cycle, this opposition has had more policy out there than any other opposition in living memory.

These policies include an increase in the tobacco excise over the next three years, which will raise an additional $48 billion. We will clamp down on the excessively generous and unsustainable tax concessions for very high-end superannuants—people with more than $1 million in their superannuation balance, who earn an income above $75,000 off that balance. We are not talking about drawing down on the balance, but if someone earns an income through interest or dividends on that balance over $1 million currently they pay no tax on that—no tax whatsoever. Labor has said that is unsustainable; that tax concession will eventually swallow much of the social security system. So we need to tighten that up. It is an area where we can raise additional revenue, and we have developed a policy such that if you earn more than $75,000 as interest off a balance in a superannuation fund then you will pay 15 per cent tax on the additional amount over $75,000.

We have also announced a policy to crack down on multinational profit shifting, ensuring that the likes of Google, Apple and Microsoft cannot shift profits overseas on the billion dollar revenues they are making in Australia in the form of loans before they pay tax here in this country. Some of those companies have been paying effective tax rates of one and two per cent. How many Australian workers or how many Australian businesses get away with paying effective tax rates of one and two per cent? They do not, and nor should big multinational companies which earn $6 billion and the like in revenue from the Australian people. They should pay their fair share of tax and Labor's policy will ensure that they do. These measures together will raise an additional $14 billion over the next decade.

So there we have it: a set of policies announced by Labor—clearly enunciated and giving time for people to have a look at them. And over the course of the last two weeks we announced another policy, to crack down on the unsustainable negative gearing that is occurring in our economy. It will ensure that we are making home ownership affordable again, taking out some of the heat that exists in the housing market—particularly in communities such as the one that I represent. Not a week goes by where I do not get a complaint from a parent about whether or not their kids are going to be able to afford to live in our community in the future. They are bewildered about how their kids are going to be able to afford the prices that certain properties are going for.

We have listened to those concerns and we have worked with economists and experts to put together a reasonable policy. We have put it out there well before the election so people have the opportunity to have a look at that policy and make their mind up. There is a fact sheet that goes with that policy and explains in detail how the policy will work. To summarise the policy: anyone who is currently in the system and negatively gears a property will be grandfathered. They will not lose the opportunity to continue to negatively gear that property that they own at the moment, and that will continue until the property is sold. Then people wishing to negatively gear beyond 1 July 2017 will be able to do so so far as they must invest in a new property. They must invest in new housing stock. The aim of that policy is to grow housing stock to increase supply, take some of the pressure off those hot housing markets and boost the construction industry and create jobs. The independent McKell Institute indicates that that policy should promote an additional 25,000 jobs in the housing industry. Again, that policy will raise an additional $30 billion in revenue in savings because of the tax concession that exists in negative gearing coupled with the reduction in the discount on the capital gains tax. This will raise an additional $30 billion for the budget over the next decade.

That additional revenue will go to fund Labor's policies. It will go to funding a decent education policy, restoring the $30 billion that has been cut by this government from school education policy over the last two years by abandoning the Gonski reforms. It will restore that funding and ensure that we fund our schools on a fair dinkum basis based on the needs of kids.

There will be a decent healthcare policy. The cuts that have been made to hospital budgets by this government will be reversed by Labor because we will have that additional revenue to fund that through these policies. Because of these policies, Labor will be able to commit to funding fully the National Disability Insurance Scheme and other policies that are fair and will grow our economy.

In summation, the choice is clear. This government, which has no economic plans whatsoever, talks about tax reform. Malcolm Turnbull says one thing but does another, says that he is all about tax reform and new economic leadership but delivers nothing. We do not have an economic plan or a tax reform policy from this government. On this side of the chamber, the Labor Party has a clearly enunciated set of policies, a clear economic vision for our nation's future. It is costed, it is fully available for people to see and it contrasts the difference in leadership between the Labor Party and those opposite.

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

I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill and the Appropriations Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise with pleasure to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 before the House today and note the comments of the member for Kingsford Smith. It would be remiss of me not to take him to task on a couple of those things. The year of ideas—or was that 'idea'?—it seems to me could be summed up as the Labor party saying: 'If elected to government, we will put our hands deeper into the pockets of Australians. We will spend more, we will not lose our addiction to spending that got us into this situation that we are now trying to deal with and we will put up taxes.'

As we all know, taxes are paid by working Australians, those mums and dads that own small businesses around our country and, of course, businesses more generally. The Labor Party suggests that whacking tobacco smokers will be part of their solution for funding the difficulties that the nation has inherited from six years of spending under Labor between 2007 and 2013. The poorest and the most vulnerable within our community will be hit the hardest. Indeed, there are those who have looked at this policy and raised real and, I think, justifiable concerns in respect of the prohibitionist style of policy here. We all know it is something that is not good for anybody's health, but that will drive more smokers to products underground. That will drive more smokers to illegal products. That will drive smokers to products from which the Commonwealth can extract no tobacco excise, to products that are likely to be increasingly controlled by criminal elements within our society.

The member for Kingsford Smith mentioned that Labor will crack down on those wealthy Australians who have saved for their retirement and enjoy $75,000 of income on their savings that they have put away. They will go after them. Here is a message out there to all those self-funded retirees: you cannot trust Labor when it comes to superannuation.

The hypocrisy of those opposite. I sat in here on the last sitting day before the Christmas break. On this side of the House were the government and the member for Melbourne, a member of the Greens party who, like his colleagues in the other place, had supported significant reforms to make sure that multinational companies operating in Australia did in fact pay their fair share of tax. If my memory serves me correctly, the only people in this place who voted against those reforms were the Labor Party. The hypocrisy of those opposite!

And then of course we come to the topic du jour, indeed, in the 'year of ideas', and that is negative gearing. I am a simple man. I worked in the wool industry for many years. I worked for a trading company in Melbourne, but I spent a lot of money on behalf of my principals and for the customers that we were supplying in all four corners of the globe. I can tell you that, when I was sitting in an auction room, the thing that brought the most joy to my heart was to see one of my competitors in bidding on similar products walking out of the room. What did it mean? It meant that prices almost certainly went down. You could apply the same at a sheep sale or a livestock sale.

Indeed, there is the example of what the Labor Party did in government in a panicked response to a social media campaign, an email campaign, and the lives and the businesses that paid a terrible, terrible price in northern Australia in respect of the live cattle export trade. But it was not just those families who were impacted directly and the transport businesses and the other business associated with that; there was the knock-on impact. It knocked down through Queensland. It knocked down through New South Wales to Victoria to the yearling sales in Tasmania. It impacted on every person around the country trying to sell cattle at that time and for many months afterwards.

So it is at a house auction. So it is when the competition is reduced for a home property. Those opposite have put forward that the policy for negative gearing would only apply to new houses. Well, blow me down with a feather. It is a bit like the new car being driven out of the dealer's premises. Drive it out, and the price falls by 20 per cent. Immediately you are devaluing an asset. The incentives here are all wrong. The signals are all wrong. As the Prime Minister said today, this is economics 101, and unfortunately the Labor Party have failed dismally. I just wonder whether or not they have consulted with some of their own Labor colleagues, the premiers of the states, because I wonder how they might feel about the value of land tax transactions going down as a result of house prices going down in their communities.

Since coming to government, we have turned this engine of state around. In fact, you can do no better than to point to the job creation—and everything, really, that this government has done over the last 2½ years has been about job creation. Indeed, 300,000 jobs have been created in the last 12 months alone. There has been jobs growth of 2.6 per cent, higher than the 10-year average of 1.8 per cent—not high enough, of course. We know we need to do more.

There has been record funding for education and health, but I think what has captured the attention of Australians and has captured the attention of small business particularly and, more broadly, those who take an interest in the economy is the innovation agenda that the government has embarked upon—led, of course, by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister Pyne. The National Innovation and Science Agenda has rekindled a degree of confidence in this country that has been welcomed by business and is permeating to the mums and dads who see the confidence being restored. I will get to practical examples of that in my home state of Tasmania.

No state more than Tasmania has been able to take advantage of and understand the benefits that have flowed to this country, and specifically Tasmania, from the trade agreements that have been signed by Minister Robb on behalf of our nation in South Korea, Japan and, of course, China.

I think that the participation in the workforce of women is a very, very strong indicator, again, of that confidence of mums and the support that we are providing them through the $5.5 billion childcare package, which is encouraging and providing mothers with more opportunities to get back in the workforce. If we have a similar proportion of female workplace participation in this country compared to, for example, a similar country such as Canada—a small population in a large country—the value to the Australian economy in terms of its increased size is roughly $25 billion a year. It is worth putting the effort in to encourage mums to get back to work.

There has been more money going into health and education. There is a focus on those subjects, the STEM subjects, that will provide the jobs of the future for more and more Australians. Particularly, again, in my home state, the opportunities that I see lie within advanced manufacturing, particularly within the food sector.

And of course there is the record investment that this government has made in respect of infrastructure, $50 billion over 10 years that is revitalising the productive infrastructure of our country, building new productive infrastructure that will set up our country to transition the economy. That is what we are doing. We are moving from what was a boom time in this nation of the construction phase within the mining sector. They have moved into the production phase. Yes, they face their challenges with commodity prices as they stand at the moment. But transitioning the Australian economy into a more diversified economy depends on the investment that we are making in infrastructure, not least of all in my home state of Tasmania.

Of course, reform within the workplace has been a focus of this government as well. Unfortunately—and it has been topical today in the debate that has just concluded—we are seeing what is happening within the Senate on the reforms that we are proposing around the Australian Building and Construction Commission and registered organisations to apply the same rigour to the way that unions are managed that applies to corporate entities in Australia. I do not think it is asking too much. The same standard that applies to public entities in this country, frankly, should apply to those organisations that purport to represent working Australians. These are all measures that are about driving productivity in our nation.

In my home state of Tasmania we are leading the way, and we have done so for more than 18 months, in terms of small and medium business enterprise confidence. We used to describe Labor and the Greens running the show in Canberra as a 'double whammy', but in Tasmania we had the double whammy. We had a Labor government at home in coalition, with ministers in cabinet—some of whom now reside in the other place—running our state into the ground. No more. We put a plan forward to the Tasmanian people: we would focus on rebuilding our state to capitalise on the entrepreneurial spirit that exists within the people of Tasmania and the people of my electorate.

And so it is that in two short years we have been able to, through re-engendering confidence and focusing on a can-do attitude, deliver our state some stunning results in terms of business confidence. There is one thing I would like to highlight: we have had close in recent days—certainly in the last week or so—the Tasmanian Jobs and Investment Fund. This is a fund that the Commonwealth contributed $16 million to. The Tasmanian government has added $8 million to that, which, indeed, we welcome. It is for businesses looking to expand, to innovate and to grow their businesses, creating more jobs for more Tasmanians.

It is funding that is available on a competitive basis for businesses—$1 of funding for every $2 that the business is investing. Indeed, without getting into the specifics, it is being managed by AusIndustry, and I look forward to the work that they will do. It will be a difficult job, I have no doubt. There were 140 applications for the $24 million that is available to businesses looking to expand. Those applications were for nearly $107 million, with matching funding of $362 million—totalling almost half a billion dollars of proposed investment.

What this will mean for my state is truly transformational. This will mean, and it is evidence of, businesses having an increasing confidence that, in Canberra, we have a government with a plan. We have a government that is focused on the things that Australians want us to be focused on. They know we have not had it all our own way. We have a state government at home that is supporting the work of the Commonwealth government, and I look forward to being part of the continued work that I can do in this space to encourage more jobs and growth in Tasmania.

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

Tax has been the hot topic of conversation around the barbecues of north-east Victoria this summer. Tax—how it is raised, how it is spent and what the government does with it. It is time to get honest about tax and tax reform, and to get honest about the need for regional Australia to be included in any conversation about tax. Tonight I call on the government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to stay the course and to give us, the people of rural and regional Australia, the information we need about tax reform.

In March 2015, I tabled in this place my private member's bill, The Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment (Regional Australia Statements) Bill 2015. This bill called on the government to ensure that regional impact statements are prepared and accompany every budget, every year. This amendment bill addresses my election commitment to stand up for people who live in regional Australia; people who already pay their fair share of tax and have a vested interest in how this tax spent. Many feel they are disadvantaged, because of a lack of taxpayer money invested in regional public transport, regional mobile phone coverage, regional internet, regional innovative employment creation and regional educational opportunities.

The topic of tax and how it is spent goes to the very heart of regional living. The main purpose of the bill was to ensure that the framework for the conduct of government budgetary policy—which includes obligations on the government to provide regular financial reporting—should include regional Australia statements. These statements would be publicly released with each Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, as well as with the budget. The central pillar of my charter of budget honesty amendment bill is for people who live in rural and regional Australia to have the information to allow them to make an assessment of the impact of government policy decisions on regional Australia.

Such statements would acknowledge, and account for, the impact government decisions have on regional Australia. They would help improve the knowledge and understanding of the impact of fiscal and budgetary measures upon regional communities. This amendment would keep the government honest about the tax revenue coming in from regional Australia, and about reporting where the expenditure is going and the degree to which it benefits people, families, businesses and farmers in regional Australia. It is important to stress here that when I refer to 'rural and regional' I am not only referring to farming or agriculture; I am also referring to the over 80,000 of my constituents who live in rural towns and small villages.

Including these statements is not a new idea. It is my understanding that they have been a feature of every budget since 1996-97—except for 2006-07—until 2013-14. They need to be returned, because they have been missed and they are needed.

There is strong community consensus, in rural and regional north-east Victoria, around the broad framework and the justification of taxation. There is a strong understanding and recognition of the government's role and responsibility to collect and redistribute tax based around an agreed set of values and behaviours and, every three years, an opportunity for the people to elect the party whose policies are generally considered in line with the community's values and expectations.

As people gathered around barbecues on glorious summer evenings this year, they talked about the ramifications of an increase in the GST to health services, food and education. They talked of the need for fairness in the tax system and the sense of unease when the big companies, the multinationals, are seen to not be paying their fair share. They talked of housing prices and wondered whether negative gearing was having a negative impact on the housing market. They talked about superannuation and shared stories of people they knew who did not have enough and how hard things would be if you could not get a pension and had to work till you were 70 or were a self-funded retiree. They also talked about others who had very profitable schemes and could live very comfortably, thank you, on the interest gained from these investments. Surely they could afford to pay tax on those earnings, they asked.

The conversations also skirted around the role of government in delivering appropriate goods and services and if people would be prepared to pay more tax if that meant better services, better access to higher education, improved infrastructure, particularly trains, and telecommunications, mobile phones and internet. And no barbecue is ever complete without stories of government waste, poor decision making and frustration at poor administration. No-one wanted more of that. There was a belief that considered and productive reform is needed of our tax system. We need better outcomes. We do not just need to raise more tax to spend more money; we need outcome based taxation.

Against a background of general chatter, I have to say there is a level of discord—things are not going well, from the people's perspective—about tax, and the general belief is that reform is well and truly overdue. There is an interest—and from many people it is an eager interest—in improvement in the taxation system and the distribution of tax. There is also an interest in the process of policymaking. How about a green paper, a white paper, policy then budget? Processes would result in a fairer tax system, better targeted support and a government focusing on its core business, with particular focus on facilitating infrastructure, transport, telecommunications, education, defence, trade and managing foreign affairs as well as maintaining a fair social welfare safety net.

There is so much that needs to be done in rural Australia, so many areas where people experience disadvantage. This leads them to a belief that the taxation system is not working for them, that it is not fair. That is why the private member's bill calling for an amendment to the Charter of Budget Honesty Act by including regional statements is so important. It would provide the facts. It would give the evidence and ensure that policy is based on data. These facts would give us the information which would allow the assessment of the likely economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts on regional Australia of key government initiatives and of the progress made in implementing key government initiatives. These statements would tell us what impact is being had, what outcomes are being reached and whether we are successfully addressing the problems that we have identified.

The legislation calls for regional statements to have regard to the economic drivers of regional communities and the disproportionate effect that government initiatives may have in regional communities due to a lack of infrastructure, including, particularly, mobile phone coverage and internet connection; a lack of access to public transport; and a lack of access to government services due to cost and long travel distances and times. There is also the effect that lack of competition in regional communities has on the cost of living and, particularly, doing business in regional communities, and the cost and difficulty involved in complying with regulatory requirements for people and business.

There is one particular topic that I would like to bring to the attention of the House. The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2015 is before the House at the moment, and this morning we had Deloitte Access Economics give us the results of their analysis of the impact of this bill, particularly on rural and regional Australia. The impact is just enormous, but to me it seems just so wrong that we should have a private enterprise consultancy business doing this study. It should come out of the Department of Education and Training. The department are putting this bill up. They should be responsible for making sure that the negative impacts and the positive impacts on rural and regional people are noted and that people understand that it is going to have a huge negative impact on us.

In bringing this to a conclusion, I have to say that in 2015 the government did not ignore that bill. In the 2015-16 budget papers, there was a most welcome addition—the 'blue book', Partnership for Regional Growth. This blue book was a joint statement by the Hon. Warren Truss, Deputy PM, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and the Hon. Jamie Briggs, at that time Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. This blue book provides an overview of current and new initiatives, under the topics of Agriculture, Attorney-General's, Defence, Education and Training, Employment, Environment, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Health, Human Services, Immigration and Border Protection, Industry and Science, Infrastructure and Regional Development, PM&C, Social Services, Treasury and Veterans' Affairs. It is a great description of programs that are operating.

But, sadly, this blue book does not do what was really asked of it. What is missing? There is no detail of budget initiatives, no impact statements or analysis of the economic drivers of regional communities and the disproportionate effect that government initiatives have in regional communities due to a lack of infrastructure and associated problems. There is no mention of our ability to grow business. There is no mention of the impacts that we are trying to have. There is no mention of outcomes. There is no mention of whether we have had success. All there is is a description, then 'Here's the money,' and no accounting at all about what we want done with it.

There is an opportunity now, as we prepare for the next budget, for the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the new leadership in the National Party and the relevant ministers to revisit the content of the blue book to review its contents and its relevance in time for the budget. To do so would be a wonderful thing. It could ensure that as a community, as we gather around our fires in late autumn and winter, as we are discussing tax and tax reform, we look at how our hard earned money—our taxes—is being used to build our communities, to bring prosperity, to bring opportunity for all and how our taxpayer money and government initiatives are changing and making a difference and we have some form of accountability for the outcomes that we want.

In closing, my call to the Prime Minister and Treasurer is to stay the course on tax reform and to put in an overlay for rural and regional Australia, across all the proposals, and then communicate the benefits, the opportunities and the costs to the one-third of the population who live outside our capital cities.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to contribute to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 cognate debate. In part, I do this to acknowledge the strong record of delivery by the coalition government since its election 2½ years ago and to lay out the many programs the government has implemented in my electorate of Solomon, and indeed the Northern Territory, since 2013.

I will begin by going back a few days to Thursday, 19 February, which is a very significant day in Darwin for our sometimes turbulent history: 19 February was the first day of the bombing. The Japanese launched 188 planes from aircraft carriers, and bombs rained on the harbour and town. Ten ships were sunk, around 250 people were killed, 400 were injured, 30 aircraft were destroyed and the city was in absolute chaos. There were oil slicks across Darwin Harbour, smashed and burning buildings, and people dead and dying. It was an event of catastrophic significance, which saw the loss of American as well as Australian personnel. Yet, outside the Northern Territory, very little is known about it compared to, say, the Kokoda Track or the Thai-Burma Railway.

Out of respect for those who died trying to defend their country at our own backdoor, the event should have a national profile. Through my own efforts and those of a great friend of the Territory, former Labor Senator Trish Crossin—the one that was sadly replaced by a captain's pick who has disappointed us all—we were able to have the bombing of Darwin declared a national day of observance. This has raised the status of February 19 from a day of local commemoration to one of national significance. Next year we will commemorate the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. It is important that we acknowledge our past and celebrate our future.

This year I laid a wreath, on behalf of the Prime Minister, alongside my husband, Paul, and Mr Masato Takaoko who is the Consul-General of Japan. This was a very moving moment for the three of us and I am pleased that our countries are now firm friends.

Northern Australia contributes over 11 per cent of Australia's GDP and has 40 per cent of Australia's GDP but only around five per cent of its population. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is set to commence in the 2016-17 financial year. I am looking forward to seeing ambitious nation-building projects growing the Territory. Indeed, population growth will be crucial in driving investment in Northern Australia, particularly in cities like Darwin.

Leading demographer Bernard Salt said last year that if the government is to succeed in developing the north, Darwin's population will need to grow by 70 per cent to reach around 250,000 or 300,000 over the next 30 to 40 years. The government's vision for Northern Australia lays the foundation for this to occur over the next two decades. It includes $600 million for roads, cash to upgrade airstrips, money to explore rail freight, $100 million for beef roads, $200 million for water infrastructure, $75 million towards a cooperative research centre and measures to develop even closer links with Asia.

In partnership with the Northern Territory government, the coalition is spending $70 million duplicating Tiger Brennan Drive—one of the two main arterial roads in and out of Darwin. In 2014, I was proud to have the former Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss in my electorate to open the first stage of the duplication. I can assure the former Deputy Prime Minister that work on the next phase of the project—duplicating the road out to the Berrimah lights—is powering ahead, notwithstanding the discovery of the occasional bomb dropped during one of the raids that I mentioned earlier. The duplication means that Palmerston residents and those from further afield can enjoy a quicker and safer commute into and out of the CBD, spending a lot less time in their cars and more time doing the things that they like to do—and many Territorians like to spend time fishing.

Also growing the Territory, through the Investment Road and Rail Program, the coalition is spending $18 million improving flood immunity, road safety and productivity on the Stuart Highway—the other arterial road into and out of the city—between Katherine and Darwin.

Still on roads, the Black Spot Program has provided a boost to road safety in Solomon, with funding approved for a number of projects. Some of these have been funded directly to the Darwin City Council or the Palmerston City Council while others have been directed to the Northern Territory government for their road expenditure. We have $120,000 in expenditure on the Trower Road and Dripstone Road intersection in Wagaman. On the Smith Street and Edmund Street intersection in Darwin CBD there is $43,000 being spent. On McMillans Road and Lee Point Road intersection in Moil there is $400,000 being spent. On the Stuart Highway and Amy Johnson Avenue intersection in Coonawarra there is $100,000 being spent. On the Stuart Highway between Bagot Road and Billeroy Road, in The Narrows, there is $200,000 being spent to upgrade that area. In the city, once again, at Smith Street and Daly Street intersection, $550,000 is being used to implement a roundabout. At the Ryland Road and Clarke Crescent intersection in Rapid Creek, $75,000 is being spent for road infrastructure. At the Temple Terrace and Emery Avenue intersection in Gray, $500,000 is being spent to upgrade that intersection. And at the Elrundi Avenue and Bonson Terrace intersection in Moulden, $260,000 is being spent from the Black Spot Program to upgrade that particular intersection. On the Flockhart Drive Bridge between Muster Road and Campfire Court in Marlow Lagoon, $440,000 is being spent for a pedestrian bridge to make sure that the children going to and from the Palmerston Christian School are going to be safe from the road traffic. These upgrades are about improving safety on our local roads, and, as the local member, I am extremely proud to have been able to work with the Solomon community to identify roads in need and to secure investment in these particular roads.

Solomon has benefited from the Roads to Recovery program, with the city of Darwin receiving $5.72 million and the city of Palmerston $2.47 million to upgrade local roads. The National Stronger Regions Fund has at its heart economic development, and third-round submissions have recently opened for this much sought-after nation building measure. Darwin City Council's request for almost $4.5 million for its ambitious upgrade to Parap pool was approved in round 1, and I look forward to working with the Darwin City Council and, in particular, with Lord Mayor Katrina Fong Lim, as this project proceeds.

Some concerns were raised around the Northern Territory that we were not able to secure any funding in round 2. No-one was more disappointed than I was, and we have got some feedback from those applications and we are working to secure funding in the next round. I encourage anyone who is interested in submitting for round 3 to work with my office so we can ensure that we get some much-needed funding in the Territory.

The Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program was an extremely popular measure in Solomon. The Commonwealth provided funding of $1.7 million to help with the enormously successful Albert Borella trek. This trek re-enacted the incredible journey that Albert Borella and his companions took from Tennant Creek to Darwin after war broke out—by train, by horseback, on foot and eventually by boat. Albert Borella went to extraordinary lengths to enlist in the Great War, and after a short campaign at Gallipoli he eventually became the Territory's first and only Victoria Cross winner on the battlefields of Europe.

At a local level, I was extremely pleased that the Commonwealth was able to top up funding for the Anzac centenary program from $75,000 to $125,000, which allowed local committees more scope to assess submissions to approve project requests. The Solomon committee was bipartisan with representatives from the government and opposition benches of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and included veterans group representatives, a leading military historian, the editor of Darwin Sun and Palmerston Sun newspapers and a youth representative, and we also received input from the Chief Minister's department. A substantial number of nominations were received but the primary criteria upon which successful applications were judged was the enduring nature of the proposal. For example, the Darwin RSL Sub Branch received the lion's share of funding with a $50,000 grant towards a documentary about Albert Borella's trek, including footage of the re-enactment ride into Darwin.

Other grant recipients were the Vietnam veterans, who received $3,357 to spread the Anzac history to all Northern Territory students, through a book; Girl Guides NT received $1,715 to construct an Anzac centenary memorial garden at their Parap headquarters;    Darwin Military Museum received $5,275 to contribute towards a Great War museum display; St Paul's Primary School received $2,333 to install an Anzac commemorative plaque and a flagpole; The Palmerston RSL Sub Branch received $18,583 to conduct an Anzac eve youth vigil and Great War research competition in Palmerston; Moil Primary School received $5,000 to perform the production From Darwin to Dardanelles, and Darwin High School also received $5,000 to hold an Anzac assembly featuring a tribute to the silent service of the Australian submarine flotilla.

Darwin Military Museum received $27,000 to produce and distribute a book, including a teacher's guide, about those who served in the Great War from the Northern Territory. I have spoken about that book, which was written by Norman Cramp. It is a fantastic book and I was delighted to be able to launch that a few weeks ago.

Casuarina Senior College received $875 to help them hold an Anzac centenary commemorative week and service, and the Darwin RSL Sub Branch received $7,262, for rectification and correction of deceased listings on the Darwin First World War cenotaph.

I am extremely proud to have been involved in this program, with its roots well and truly in the Solomon community. As somebody with a great-uncle who served and died in Europe fighting for his country, it was extremely satisfying to have been able in a small way to honour the sacrifice of those who took part in the war to end all wars.

The former Deputy Prime Minister also opened the Housing Industry Association's multipurpose building industry training centre project, which was supported with $3.3 million from the Regional Development Australia Fund, and the $7.5 million Michael Long Territory Thunder Learning and Leadership Centre was also built with support from this funding pool. It was opened by former minister Jamie Briggs.

Law and order was an unusual focus for Commonwealth governments, but the coalition was keen to help ease the pressure on the states and territories in this space. The result for Solomon was the purchase of two mobile CCTV units that have been deployed on a needs basis such as the Nightcliff, Karama and Palmerston shopping centres. These are wonderful pieces of infrastructure that provide awesome support to our police officers.

The Green Army has been busy in Solomon, with up to 30 volunteers, mostly aged between 17 and 24, assisting local groups including the McMinns Lagoon Reserve Association—even though that is not in Solomon—Friends of Casuarina Coastal Reserve, Friends of Fogg Dam and Friends of Mitchell Creek on revegetation, clean-up and signage projects. I want to acknowledge the really good work by Conservation Volunteers Australia in facilitating these projects.

Funding has also been approved for a particularly exciting project under the auspices of Greening Australia which, with support of the Green Army, aims to establish the largest seed bank in the Northern Territory. The Green Army will assist in the collection of seeds, their cataloguing and storage with an eye eventually on having the seed stock registered both nationally and globally. I am delighted the Green Army is able to assist in the early stages of this important body of work.

There has been some talk about the Palmerston hospital, and I noticed the Labor shadow minister is in the chamber. I am delighted to say that the project is well and truly underway. The Northern Territory government has responsibility for delivering on this. We funded it and, despite all the lies from those across the table, it is well and truly underway. My opponent, the wannabe politician, needs to stop with the scaremongering.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and cognate bill, which represent Malcolm Turnbull's first major economic statement. I do feel the need to respond to the member for Solomon to some extent. I think the Northern Territory government, unfortunately, dropped the member for Solomon in it. Her media statements around the Northern Territory government actually attest to that. I felt very sorry that she was, unfortunately, dragged into what clearly was a stunt around the Palmerston hospital. I am delighted and those on this side are delighted because we made the commitment to the funding for the Palmerston hospital in the first place that it is finally under construction, though a bit late, I would have to say. I do feel very embarrassed for the member for Solomon that she got dragged into the stunt by the Northern Territory government and I am glad she hit out at them in the local media about that. But I do look forward to having our Labor candidate, who has been a champion not only for the Palmerston hospital but for the Darwin hospital as well, here as the new member for Solomon in the next parliament.

The appropriation bills give us an opportunity to look at the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and to speak about those areas for which we have some responsibility. Of course, I wish to speak about health. Sadly, despite the Prime Minister's promise of new leadership, there has been absolutely no evidence of that when it comes to health policy. Instead, in many ways, what we have seen in the Prime Minister's first economic statement is actually worse than what we saw from the previous Prime Minister and the previous Treasurer.

This year Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook statement has continued the $57 billion worth of cuts to public hospitals. I note some reports today that the government has been forced and will have to go to the COAG meeting in April with the bucket on the table—$7 billion potentially—that represents Labor's funding for the next few years for public hospitals. It is the money Labor committed. What an embarrassed for the government that it now has to put exactly the money that the states and territories would have got under Labor's agreements back to the states and territories because of the absolute mess they have created with public hospital funding—$57 billion worth of cuts. I can tell you now, $7 billion is not going to cut it when it comes to the growth in demand in our public hospitals. If you think you are going to get away with just rolling all of the money in from some of the existing services and not giving the states extra money to meet the demand that is happening in our public hospitals across the country, then you are kidding yourselves and you are on for a very big fight over this issue.

Again, in the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook we not only had the $57 billion worth of public hospital cuts entrenched in the budget but also the $2 billion four-year freeze on Medicare rebates for GP visits. The government may not think this matters much, but we know that over time what we will start to see is the introduction, in essence, of large co-payments within general practice. That is what is already happening in some areas. Over time, it certainly will have a substantial impact on the fees that GPs charge their patients.

We also saw the continuation of the $800 million in cuts to the health flexible funds. This is a debacle. We saw, in fact, that debacle this week. The hotline for the Australian Breastfeeding Association that thousands of women ring each year to try to get advice about breastfeeding has uncertain funding. The funding was due to run out at the end of this financial year. They had been to the department. There was nowhere for them to put an application in. They were told, very specifically, that they could put in a letter and there might be something coming but there was no time frame, no possibility about what the amount would be or what the parameters were because the department simply does not know what is happening with those flexible funds. I am very pleased the government has provided them with some money for another year. They were getting three-year funding and they have now been bailed out for another year.

This is the chaos that has been created with the $800 million being entrenched in MYEFO into the budget to all of the not-for-profit organisations across the health system. We have recently seen the rural and regional health consumers forum, basically, defunded—it is $60,000. There is nowhere else for these groups to go, and there are hundreds of them. Many of them are coming to me. They are scared. They say they do not want to run a campaign because they know how vindictive this government is when they do.

The Australian Breastfeeding Association have been courageous and they have had a result here. But they have had a result of one year, because, I can tell you now, there was a strong potential for a very strong campaign against this government on this issue and the government has tried to save itself a problem in the lead-up to the election. But these $800 million worth of cuts are causing chaos across the not-for-profit sector when it comes to health and the government has no solution. It is tinkering around the flexible funds. Out of the blue, it created a new peaks fund that no-one particularly knew about. It has also told people that it is going to start creating other funds as well. It is chaos when it comes to this issue.

We have also seen entrenched again in the budget a $1.3 billion hike to the essential medicines. That still sits in MYEFO as a $1.3 billion savings measure, despite the fact that the Senate has clearly indicated it will not pass. It is a fraud to have it there. The minister has said, 'I'm not taking it off the table, because I'll have to find other savings.' Well, yes, she will, but it seems to me that the government cannot continue to claim that this measure is in fact a saving and try to prop up its budget bottom line. Equally, in the same point, is the $267 million attack on the Medicare safety net, which had, in particular, those patients facing fertility treatment so anxious about what that would mean in that area as well as in some of the other areas such as psychotherapy in the mental health space. So, again, that is also still within the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. But, to add insult to injury, this mid-year economic statement adds another $2.1 billion in cuts that will make potentially make health care even less affordable to millions of Australians. Frankly, this mid-year budget review proved that, no matter who the leader is, the Liberals only ever see health as a source of budget cuts and will always look to make health less affordable for those who need it most—the sick and the poor.

The Prime Minister's first economic statement, delivered just weeks after he came to power, promised to put an end to the backward-looking policies and divisions of his predecessor. But, instead, in health, the government cut $595 million out of health workforce programs. Having already cut the health workforce, it is incredibly short-sighted for the government to have done this. We have seen a program of work remaining from Health Workforce Australia that will basically pretty much finish at the end of this year, and now they have cut further funding out of health workforce. The government have no policy, no plan and no idea about what they are doing in this vital area to make sure that our health system actually functions. What are you going to do about the professions, how they are spread across the country, what their work is, and how you foster the next generation of our workforce in this area? It is critical to reform, and the government have absolutely dropped the ball. We have also seen another $146 million out of health prevention and eHealth. The government are going around saying that they are committed to the electronic health record, yet they have continued with cuts and they have not put money in the forward estimates for it. So they have a big problem when it comes to that.

As we have heard a lot about both in this place and outside, they have also taken a very blunt instrument and ripped another $650 million out of bulk-billing for pathology and have made changes to bulk-billing for diagnostic imaging. Australian women were rightly outraged at reports that, as a result of the Turnbull government's pre-Christmas budget cuts, they might soon be paying a lot more for critical tests. These are critical tests when it comes to cancer diagnosis and chronic disease. It is a very blunt instrument. If the government think that the pathology companies—which they like to beat up on at the moment—and the diagnostic imaging companies are somehow going to just absorb these cuts and be really generous to patients and not pass these cuts on, they are absolutely kidding themselves. They know that these companies will pass these cuts on. You can say that is appalling—it may well be—but that is the commercial reality of what they will do. What will happen as a result? The result will be that it is the patients who will pay—and, in some cases, it will be the sickest and poorest patients who will pay.

The government like to play around with figures on this, but the bulk-billing incentive in pathology was deliberately designed after we had made savings in the pathology area to ensure that pathology maintained its high level of bulk-billing—and that is exactly what happened. It has not only done that; it has increased it by one per cent. So if you think just taking that away without any negotiation with the pathology companies about how they might continue to keep high rates of bulk-billing and that there will not be a change, you are just in there with a wing and a prayer—and the people who are going to pay for that are the patients.

I particularly want to highlight diagnostic imaging. I am bit reluctant to do this on this day, but it is the only opportunity I have to do so. In particular, because it is Teal Ribbon Day, I want to talk about the circumstances of someone who may be diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer is an insidious disease. It is the silent killer. We know that, for many, many women, the symptoms do not show. They are symptoms that we all generally put down to being of our gender. We might be a bit tired, we might be feeling a bit bloated or we might have to wee a bit more, but we do not necessarily think that these are things that we should absolutely, desperately, go and see the doctor about.

I found it a bit galling, to be honest—when we have these terrible cuts that are happening to diagnostic imaging—to see some of the comments being made about how we need to commit to ovarian cancer and how important this is on this day, when there are some very serious consequences of the decisions that this government is making. For example, a woman diagnosed with ovarian cancer will typically need an ultrasound and two CT scans and, after treatment, a further five CT scans and two ultrasounds for monitoring. As a result of the government's decision to cut diagnostic imaging, these women now face upfront costs of between $3½ thousand to $4½ thousand, because you do not just get to pay the gap; you actually have to pay the full amount upfront and then reclaim from Medicare. So they have to find that money each time for those scans and, even after they receive the Medicare rebate, they are left between $365 and $1,300 out of pocket. They are the figures from the Australian Diagnostic Imaging Association and they cannot be dismissed. That is the commercial reality of what they have said they will need to do in their practices across the country.

I have no doubt that many women, when they hear these examples and when they see what these cuts actually mean for what patients, potentially, will pay in out-of-pocket costs, will be extremely distressed by that—and they should be. What the government has done, in the mid-year economic financial statement, has been a very blunt instrument. It has not been negotiated with either of those sectors. The inevitable consequence of those is, of course, that patients will pay.

I saw the minister's press release; we do pay attention. We get a bit amused by those, I must admit, in my office, because we are in opposition and she does pay us an awful lot of attention for that. It is always very flattering. But in quoting the Grattan Institute on pathology today the minister probably had not read the report. The report clearly stated that if the government proceeds with what it is doing there is the potential for patients to pay for it. This mid-year economic financial statement has entrenched the fact that this government is the worst friend that Medicare has ever had. They do not believe in universal health care and they should be ashamed of what they have done in health.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and the associated package, which details the expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this financial year. The total being sought through these bills is just over $2.2 billion. Like many members on both sides, I am really pleased to have his opportunity to discuss how this wide-ranging legislation will provide a significant boost to my electorate of Robertson.

One element in this package of bills that I do want a focus on tonight, because it has a real impact in my electorate, is the investment in the National Disability Insurance Agency, which will roll out the landmark National Disability Insurance Scheme—more commonly known as the NDIS. The bill delivers just over $108 million for the transition to the full NDIS, as agreed with New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Importantly, for the families and businesses in my electorate of Robertson, the scheme includes the Central Coast, which is among one of the first locations where the NDIS will be delivered in New South Wales. It will be phased in from 1 July this year—just a few months away—and will continue to be transitioned gradually through to the end of June 2017.

I think it is vital to emphasise from the outset that the Turnbull government is fully committed to implementing the NDIS. I am advised that, by the end of the transition to the full scheme in New South Wales, around 115,000 participants are expected to be supported by the scheme. The agreement with New South Wales also provides for another 26,000 people who are not currently receiving services to enter the scheme from July 2018. So in terms of the overall numbers, this gives certainty to more than 140,000 people with disability in New South Wales. When combined with the agreements signed with Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT, it gives certainty to the more than 64 per cent of the 460,000 Australians expected to be eligible for the NDIS. Each region will, of course, have a different approach to the transition. The phasing in of clients will take account of local circumstances and promote the best possible outcomes for people with disability in each local area.

Of course, the NDIS is not just about a program; it is not just about KPIs. It is all about helping real people who need this support and backing the organisations that work so hard on the ground to deliver it. The NDIS is a long-term commitment for people who need lifelong support. Many people who will need that lifelong support live in my electorate of Robertson. That is why, today, I would really like to share some examples as to how organisations and people in Robertson will directly benefit from this scheme.

The Turnbull government was recently able to confirm funding to deliver employment certainty for around 200 people with disability on the Central Coast through an investment of $650 million, for Australian Disability Enterprises, over the next three years. Six-point-three million dollars of this funding is for three outstanding organisations in Robertson, including Fairhaven Services. It is a local organisation on the Central Coast that is focussed on ensuring that people who have disability have the opportunity for work. Fairhaven's Chief Executive Officer, Jim Buultjens, told me that it would deliver more varied work options for more than 140 employees, like at the Fare Cravin' cafe at Point Clare that they recently opened and that we attended, and at their factory at West Gosford.

Terama Industries at Gosford and Lasercraft Australia at West Gosford are also receiving funding to deliver jobs for people with disability on the Central Coast. These new contracts, signed by these organisations as part of the funding, are expected to reduce red tape and assist in the transition from current arrangements to the new claiming processes on the NDIS.

Importantly, I understand that people currently receiving support through the New South Wales government specialist disability services will be moving to the NDIS first. Those with unmet needs who newly acquire a disability, or whose circumstances change so that they need critical support, will also be able to enter the NDIS during the transition period. Importantly, also, people receiving support at the moment from a state or the Commonwealth will continue to do so until they transition into the NDIS. This news has the potential to have a significant impact on many families right across the Central Coast, particularly parents who are tireless carers for children with a disability, such as Rachael.

Rachael has lived on the Central Coast for 25 years. She has two children under the age of 10, one of whom was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder around three years ago and is completely non-verbal. In a letter to me, Rachael said that she started with no knowledge whatsoever of what to do—as with many people when receiving a diagnosis such as this. Through some basic Google researching, she found a paediatrician and quickly realised that early intervention was absolutely the key. We know that children with disability should have the same choices, opportunities and experiences as other children and be fully participating in their community to lay the foundation for further development and learning. But, for Rachael, to make this a reality required sacrifices. Rachael's full-time job soon became part-time, as the therapy sessions became more regular. The family was able to access $12,000 in funding from the federal government during this time, through the Helping Children with Autism package, which did assist in some of the costs that kept rising. The appointments with experts on speech, occupational therapists, paediatricians and clinical psychologists kept coming but Rachael's family decided more therapy was needed.

I understand they have since linked up with Jigsaw, whose Occupational Therapy for Children program works within home, school and community environments. But of course more therapy also involves more expense, and Rachael's family said they were finding it difficult given the everyday costs of living including bills and mortgages to pay. Rachael's letter ended to me:

As a mum, trying to do the best for her son, I'm writing you this letter to have the NDIS available sooner. I believe not just for myself, but other families who are missing out on this opportunity.

I am pleased to say, that in just a few months this process starts on the Central Coast which could assist families like Rachael's.

Another local mother I have been speaking with about the challenges and opportunities of the NDIS is Lorraine from Lisarow. Lorraine is a single parent whose 11-year-old son has Dravet syndrome. Until recently, Lorraine was able to claim several days a week in disability respite services provided through the New South Wales state government. I understand that respite provides families and unpaid carers of a person with a disability, like Lorraine, with planned, short-term, time-limited breaks from their usual caring role. Respite services aim to provide a positive experience for both the carer and for the person with disability. However, I am advised that since circumstances for Lorraine changed, because she now works part-time, this support is now more difficult to access. Despite trying to hold down her job, Lorraine told me it is causing added stress at home with taking care of her son, especially on school holidays.

I am determined to work towards establishing the potential for the NDIS, in collaboration with the New South Wales government's current disability funding framework, to see if that may be a way forward for Lorraine to obtain the support she needs. I want to thank Lorraine for sharing with me her very personal story. It has been an absolute pleasure to get to know Lorraine over a number of meetings and occasions, and also her son.

The NDIS has also got the potential to help businesses who help people with a disability, like Gemma, who is a pathologist at Coastal Speech Pathology in Erina. Gemma runs her own private practice and told me that she expects many of her clients will become participants of the NDIS when it begins. The practice also encourages early intervention and assists children to access support through private allied health services. This has allowed local families to develop strategies to help their child participate at preschool, develop communication skills, and to learn to eat and grow. However, like Lorraine, Gemma also raised with me some concerns around the clarity of the rollout process and how it relates to helping patients. Local stroke awareness advocate Brenda Booth, from Woy Woy, has also raised with me on behalf of many stroke survivors on the Central Coast some of their questions regarding the rollout, not just of services but also available information.

The NDIS is about helping a participant to reach their goals, objectives and aspirations and to undertake activities to enable their social and economic participation. But it is also about delivering more choice and control to people with permanent and significant disability, their families and carers. This government is determined to deliver the NDIS on time, within budget and in full to support families that need it the most. But we also need to ensure the people in my electorate of Robertson know how this rollout will directly impact them, and work to communicate this clearly to families and businesses. Part of this would be to push for the National Disability Insurance Agency to be based locally in Gosford. Having a Central Coast based office coordinating the local rollout and engaging with our local community would be a direct boost and a direct benefit to our region as well as to the families and businesses that will be accessing and participating in the scheme. I am working closely with the Minister for Social Services to make this a reality.

In the meantime, I would encourage people in my electorate to contact my office to check if they may be eligible for the NDIS and to find out more information about this important scheme. It is just one way that this Turnbull government is determined to care for the families who need it most.

As a mother of two young children myself, I strongly support the work of the government in this area and commend the bill to the House.

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

The appropriation bills being debated today, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriations Bill (No. 4) 2015-16, are seeking parliamentary approval to appropriate $2.2 billion in 2015-16. These bills reflect the changes to the budget that were shown in the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook which was released by the Turnbull government just prior to Christmas on 15 December 2015.

Labor will, of course, not block supply. We are, however, very keen to take a close look at some of the priorities and decision making of this government to show up where they have been found to be sorely lacking. What has become very clear since the MYEFO in December is the extent of the economic mismanagement of this government has been really laid bare. We have seen a budget situation that is deteriorating and not being addressed. I do want to go to some of those issues to outline some of the impacts of decisions being made by this government that really undermine both our economic and our social circumstances here in Australia.

It was clearly exhibited in the 2015-16 MYEFO the continued deterioration of the state of the budget and the economy under the current Abbott-Turnbull government. We learnt from MYEFO that the deficit was higher, a blow out of some $26 billion over the forward estimates—$120 million per day between the 2015-16 budget and the 2015-16 MYEFO. We also discovered that the net debt for 2016-17 is nearly $100 billion higher than was forecast back in 2013. Gross debt is headed to $550 billion by the end of the forward estimates and economic growth has been slashed.

This is on the back of figures which show the deterioration of the economy under this government. We have seen living standards, as measured by net disposable income per capita, falling now for six consecutive quarters. We have seen capital expenditure falling, with a broad-based decline—not just in the mining sector, as some members opposite might have us believe. Consumer and business confidence is at levels far lower than they were when this government took office. The evidence is clear: we have a Prime Minister, Treasurer and government who are failing to provide the economic leadership that Australia needs to prosper.

What has led the budget into the position where we now find it, you might ask. The answer to that question is the priorities and decisions that this government has made; the responsibility for which lies fairly at the feet of the Abbott-Turnbull government to date. From the early days, with the multibillion dollar cash injection into the Reserve Bank—an injection that the Reserve Bank did not ask for, as we well remember—to more recently allocating millions to pay for the magical mystery infrastructure re-announcement tours, the coalition continues to make decisions that undermine our economy and our budget and, more significantly, decisions that undermine the social contract that this government and parliament has with the Australian people. This is a government whose priorities are twisted and the execution of whose policies are lived as a cruel consequence for the Australian people.

I will start very briefly with this government's appointments around human rights commissioners in Australia. There has been nothing more offensive, in my view, than this government's decision to not replace the role of a full-time disability discrimination commissioner. I just heard the member opposite, the member for Robertson, talking passionately about the support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is, indeed, a Labor policy position that has enjoyed bipartisan support in this House, and for that I think the nation remains grateful. But you cannot come to this House and lend support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme with one hand whilst you cut the capacity of people with disability to have a legitimate avenue of complaint and to ensure that due process is being followed to have all of their complaints heard in a proper manner. That is exactly what this government did when the then Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Graeme Innes, retired. His term was up, and this government refused and continues to refuse to replace that position with a full-time commissioner.

That is no slur on the tremendous work being done by Commissioner Susan Ryan, who has to double up her efforts. She is now a joint commissioner for both ageing and disability. These are portfolios which require their own dedicated commissioners. We know full well in this House that 37 per cent of the discrimination complaints handled by the Human Rights Commission were related to disability. We know that that is a heavy workload. We know that it is an area of clear, demonstrated need, yet this government does not see fit to replace the retired Graeme Innes with an equivalent full-time disability discrimination commissioner. That is to this government's great shame, and we should never forget it. Not only did the government cut the roles of the disability and ageing commissioners in half—they subsequently took five months to replace the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, a pivotal role within the Human Rights Commission.

However, we also saw the government swing into very swift action when they wanted to appoint a somewhat different type of commissioner on the political landscape—our very first wind farm commissioner, whose role continues to be as opaque and unfathomable as ever. The wind farm commissioner was appointed back in October 2015 following the announcement of the role in June 2015. In Senate estimates earlier this month, neither the Wind Farm Commissioner, the department or the minister were able to answer questions around the overall cost of the office of the Wind Farm Commissioner and what that cost will be to taxpayers. There were no answers, nor could they provide a figure as to the commissioner's travel budget, despite admitting to undertaking significant travel to meet stakeholders and complainants. The only figure they could confirm during estimates was the commissioner's salary of $205,000 for a part-time role. Again, when asked questions in Senate estimates no-one had any idea how many days or hours we were actually paying the commissioner for. What a debacle! What an absolute disgrace!

I hope that with the very recent opening created in the Human Rights Commission following the resignation of the Liberal preselection candidate, Tim Wilson, from his role as the 'freedom commissioner', this government will take the opportunity to reset their priorities, and that we will get to see the reappointment of a dedicated disability discrimination commissioner, allowing also a dedicated commissioner for the aged again in the process. I would think these are some significant areas that are in need of redress. This government has an ideal opportunity to take that issue up now.

I also note in the area of the immigration portfolio, or Border Force, the absolutely appalling situation that Australia finds itself in where this government has no plan for resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers into a third country, instead wasting $55 million on an incredibly botched deal with Cambodia that has resettled first four and now three people in Cambodia, all the while leaving refugees and asylum seekers to just languish in detention facilities with absolutely no hope and no certainty as to their future. That is a situation that is intolerable and the people of Australia have every right to be questioning where this government's plan is, what its intentions are and who is now really looking out for those asylum seekers and refugees under Australia's care.

If I look at the disastrous Direct Action plan that this government has before us, half of the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund has been spent, and yet for the first time in 10 years greenhouse gas emissions are rising in Australia. At a time when nearly 200 countries around the world have acknowledged the need to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, the Liberal government here is taking Australia in the opposite direction.

We saw a report earlier this month where the modeller RepuTex confirmed that pollution levels have gone up 1.3 per cent over the 2014-2015 fiscal year, and that is the first time we have had an increase since the 2005-2006 period. That same report confirmed that emissions are projected to rise from six per cent by 2020, with no peak in emissions expected before 2030. The old Malcolm Turnbull would never have stood for this but, regrettably, the new Malcolm Turnbull appears to have turned a blind eye to appease the conservative elements within his own party. He has sold his beliefs and the Australian people up the creek, really, whilst wrestling for leadership in his own party.

When it comes to workers' rights, we have seen a government that would rather invest $80 million in a royal commission than give serious attention to looking at redressing situations where there is blatant worker exploitation going on. There are employers like Baiada and the 7-Eleven stores in my electorate and, indeed, in many others in this House, whose stories of blatant exploitation of workers go completely unaddressed in this parliament. These are high-profile cases; they are just the tip of the iceberg, but they indeed require some serious attention. Labor has delivered important policy announcements in this area that seek to strengthen and protect workers' rights at work. That announcement is out there before the Australian people, for their consideration.

This is a Liberal government that has also completely abandoned seafarers and shipbuilding in my electorate. I have two shipyards that are facing very grim futures. The workforce has gone from Forgacs. It has just recently been sold and the workforce has dropped from over 1,000 highly-skilled men and women to fewer than 100.

Of course, just recently we saw the shocking removal of Australian seafarers in my Port of Newcastle from the CSL Melbourne. They were marched off their ship, their place of work, by the New South Wales Police Force. What was their crime? It would appear that to be an Australian seafarer was their crime. That ship will be replaced by a foreign-flagged ship and the men will be replaced by a foreign crew. These are men who have sailed between Gladstone and the Port of Newcastle for decades, but this government has no interest in the retention of an Australian coastal shipping industry—much to their shame.

There are many other issues that are deserving of attention here, but time is extremely limited: this government's complete neglect of cities policy, and of regional cities policy in particular, is absolutely abysmal. They have dropped the ball by abolishing the High Speed Rail Planning Authority. These are issues that need attention, but this is a government with no vision for our future, no control over today and in denial of their decisions that are making matters worse.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and the related bill.

A lot has been said about the Safe Schools program that was funded by the previous Labor government. I will take this opportunity today to say why I am opposed to its continued funding. I note that there is a story on ABC Online about the views of my colleagues and what our opponents say about those views, so to start with I will use the quote from Premier Andrews of Victoria, who was reported as saying:

… let’s be honest here: I don’t think these extreme Liberals are actually offended by the structure of the program, or the teachers who lead it.

I just think they’re offended by the kids who need it.

That is absolutely wrong in every element of that statement, right from the start where he says, 'let's be honest'. But I do say that this is a country where there is free speech, so he has the right to say these things. Clearly, he does not tolerate alternative opinions, but I will offer a glimpse into how things are done in Victoria. With my example it appears to me that bullying is alive and well in such schools, but not in the way that is suggested in the Safe Schools program.

I will get to that soon, but it would be true to say that many people have contacted me about this issue. It was even raised with me during my door knocking. The concerns are legitimate and therefore it is not just my colleagues here on the government benches who are raising these concerns. I know that one of my neighbours in Darch raised it with me as well, and so I then asked about the experience his daughter had in the Victorian and Western Australian school systems. I thank her for helping me out with what actually happened. I emphasise that this was not something that I got out of the paper or off a website, but I know them and I know that this information is no exaggeration. Here is what this year 12 student in Cowan told me about her time in a Victorian school. I have provided the name of the school to the minister's office, but I will not use it in this speech.

She told me:

I am originally from a provincial city in Victoria. I went to the city High School from year 7 to the first term of year 10. The high school was very forthright about their beliefs on gay rights. From year 7 the classroom had posters about accepting gay and lesbian people and being aware of them. Then in year 9 there was a gay pride day.

When I was in year 9 my year cohort spent a day learning about health issues that we would face in the future. For an example what to do if someone passed out at a party, STDs H1Vs etc. One of the classes was about gay pride and legalising Gay marriage. The teacher mocked Islam and Christianity for persecuting gay people and saying that they are wrong and held aged old ideas. Then the teacher got the class to participate in an activity that involved the room being split into three columns — 'yes', `no' and 'on the fence'.

He asked questions on of the questions was: Do you think we should legalise Gay Marriage in Australia?

I disagreed with the question but all my class mates were standing in the yes column, I didn't want to get yelled at by the teacher or even worse get picked on by my class mates. So I got peer pressured into standing with my class mates in the yes column.

One of friends, who was in another class, also disagreed with the idea of gay marriage. She stood up for herself and her beliefs and stood in the No column. She was the only one, the teacher told her off in front of the whole class trying to put her to shame.

This is an example of bullying and intimidation of students, and I ask: are browbeating, bullying and intimidation part of creating a safe school?

All this was done without seeking parental permission, so I say to Premier Andrews that I am not offended by gay or lesbian teenagers but I am offended by a program and teachers that will not tolerate alternative views and will use the very methods they sermonise against to impose a view in schools. When my colleagues say that this program is indoctrination, I would agree. The definition of indoctrination is to teach someone to fully accept the ideas, opinions and beliefs of a particular group and not to consider other ideas.

I will read again the last part of what the year 12 student told me of what happened in Victoria:

One of friends, who was in another class, also disagreed with the idea of gay marriage. She stood up for herself and her beliefs and stood in the No column. She was the only one, the teacher told her off in front of the whole class trying to put her to shame.

I say that, in using this so-called Safe Schools program, young people are being indoctrinated. I am concerned that young people are being harassed and belittled in Australian schools, that their parents have had no say in this process and that, worst of all, the children have no protection.

There have also been reports that at Burwood Girls High School in Sydney students were pressured into signing a mural and, if they did not do so, they were abused and bullied. How sad it is that, in institutions of learning, doctrine and dogma reign so strongly. I am sure freedom of speech is allowed. Just make sure you say what is acceptable; otherwise, be prepared to be bullied by the teachers. If people on the Labor side of politics want to endorse what happened in that school and what appears to still be happening in those schools then they endorse the belittling of a young person by a person in authority. I condemn that completely and utterly.

I note that none of the schools in Cowan appear to have officially taken up the Safe Schools program; however, I would like to also offer the perspective of this year 12 student who moved to Western Australia with her family. Here is what she said about her experience in her new school:

When I moved to Western Australia I noticed that my new school wasn't so public about their stance on gay and lesbian rights.

There wasn't a Gay Day like in Victoria or a teacher pushing their ideas of gay right onto you. I've only had two problems with my year 11 English teacher. She passively gave us a feature article called 'Guy Pride' written by a gay man sarcastically talking about a straight guy coming out as a straight guy; foreshadowing what it is like for homosexuals to come out to their parents.

The article was pushed on us as we had to discuss what it was about.

My class mates said the article felt like it was pushing an agenda.

Then the second time was when she pulled out a movie. Our class was working on the theme 'odd balls and outcasts of society'; we had looked at refugees and disabled people.

The movie 'Priscilla Queen of the Desert' was about trans-sexual's and drag queens. The movie depicted them being pushed out of society. The movie had foul language and it had many sexual references. One scene depicted a boy getting molested at a young age. I remember turning away in horror.

I remember thinking, "Where was the note that told my parents about the movie and asking for their approval."

Labor Senator Wong is quoted as saying in the media, 'We all want our children to be safe and this program is about that.' I say that our children and freedom of speech are not safe from this program.

Premier Andrews said, 'I'm sick of Liberal politicians telling our kids that there's something wrong with them.' What rubbish that is from the Premier. I am telling him that there is a lot wrong with this program and that his institutionalising of bullying and doctrine onto students, without any parental involvement, is more like a human rights breach. He can hide behind the classic lines of homophobia and other moral trump words, but in the end this sort of activity is wrong in every regard.

The Leader of the Opposition has of course weighed in on this issue. He is quoted as saying it is 'disgraceful that an Australian child may fall victim to Malcolm Turnbull's failure to stand up to the right wing of his party.' What about those young people that are belittled in Australian schools because of this program and the agenda of those that advance it? Who stands up for them? The answer, of course, is that we do, and I am proud of it. Mr Shorten also said:

Life is already difficult enough for young people — they shouldn't have to put up with the added stress of bullying and intimidation in the schoolyard.

My question then is: what about the bullying in the classroom, Mr Shorten? What about the teacher standing over students, belittling, isolating and bullying them into accepting the doctrine advanced? It is a disgrace.

I acknowledge that the Foundation for Young Australians was funded by the previous government over four years from 2013 with the purpose of delivering the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program. I understand that in Queensland no one admits to using it in their schools and in Victoria it is compulsory—or it will be—but I am very pleased that the federal minister has contacted his state counterparts, saying that he expects that schools choosing to take part in the program will do so in consultation with parents and the school community and also that all material is age-appropriate and that parents have confidence in any resources used in a school to support the right of all students, staff and families to feel safe at school.

That being said, I still believe that the material and the delivery are so fundamentally flawed that they must be scrapped. Antibullying action is a core responsibility of schools and should be addressed without some narrow focus that tries to bring this agenda into every aspect of the curriculum. A program for bullying should get the balance right. What are the main reasons for bullying? Body image is at the top, then school results, then cultural or racial backgrounds, then language and gender after that.

I know that much has already been made of the political position of Marxist activist Roz Ward, who is also the co-author of so much of the material in this program, but I do worry about someone who appears to state that the Safe Schools program is step one but it is through Marxism that there is a hope and a strategy needed to create a new world regarding human sexuality and gender change. Marxism, socialism and communism are well and truly failed political systems, and it is amazing that Senator Wong wasted so much of the taxpayers' money on such a program, although some of the teaching methods, as I have quoted, do seem to be somewhat akin to Orwell's Animal Farm.

Fortunately, fringe dweller political groups such as the Socialist Alliance do little damage to society apart from vandalism during protests—until now, that is. Yes, I acknowledge that talk of socialism is useful in some Labor Party preselection fights, but ultimately the nation and the world have come to realise that socialism and communism have failed and left the people worse off than they were before.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cowan will have leave to continue his remarks at a later hour.

Debate interrupted.