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

Whilst I have a lot of regard for my colleague on the other side of the chamber, the member for Scullin, it is once again instructive to stand in this chamber—also having stood in the House—talking about education funding and listen to five minutes of whingeing and whining and complaining with no constructive solution to the problem, as usual.

I am very pleased to stand in this chamber today and speak about our education funding package, very pleased indeed. There is not a single school in my electorate that is not getting an increase in funding. As I go around to my schools and talk to the principals about the funding package, they are very happy.

An opposition member: Check your emails!

I have checked my emails—I have not had a single email of complaint. They are all happy. It is very pleasing to speak about our funding package for schools. Importantly, more than just this funding package, this government should be congratulated because in Queensland, after we were elected in 2013, in the 2014 budget we put an extra $800 million of funding into Queensland schools. Those opposite did not put this into Queensland schools, because the Queensland government had not signed an agreement. That funding has been extremely important and valuable to schools in my electorate.

The schools have used that for a range of activities. In fairness to Education Queensland, and I will give them kudos for this, that money went in full to the schools. The schools were able to design their own programs that suited their own school cohorts of students. I am pleased to say that this funding package builds on that extra $800 million that we have previously put into Queensland schools. It is about putting students first. That is what we have always done. We had the education minister, Minister Birmingham, in the electorate several weeks ago. He had a forum with the majority of principals at our schools and they were all happy with what had been proposed.

I will give you a flavour of how some of our schools have benefited. Mount Warren Park State School, which has more than 680 students, will be allocated an extra $1,705 per student from 2007 funding levels. But this is not the only school in my electorate that will benefit under this funding package. Total Commonwealth funding from 2018 to 2027 for Beenleigh State High School will be around $60 million, a total increase of around $14.2 million. Commonwealth funding, for the same period, for Loganlea State High School will be around $35 million, a total increase of some $8 million. Eagleby South State School will have funding of about $14.6 million, an increase of some $3.5 million.

This shows, quite clearly, without going into the other 42 schools in the electorate, how the claims of those opposite are completely without foundation or basis. This education funding package is fair, transparent and consistent, and it reflects the needs based funding model that Gonski outlined. It is record funding for the schools in my electorate of Forde and for schools around the country. So those opposite can complain and whinge and whine, because that is all they ever have to offer. They do not have anything constructive to offer. It is this government on this side of the chamber that is doing the work necessary to ensure our schools are fully funded. My question to the minister is: how will the Commonwealth's allocation of funding grow for the government, right across schools in all sectors in my home state of Queensland, and how is that going to benefit students in those schools?

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

In 1996, I ran to become the president of my student union. I ran on a platform that included a range of things—obviously $1-pot night at the student club was very high up there! I also ran on a platform of defending students and higher education from the attacks on students, universities and the public by the then Howard government. Interestingly enough, 20 years later here we are still fighting against attacks on higher education by conservative governments. I am pleased to say that I have been on the same side of that for the entire period. I have always fought, for my entire life, against attacks on higher education by conservative governments. I intend to continue to do so or, even better, to be part of a Labor government that will defend higher education and invest in higher education because of the benefits that it brings to this nation and this nation's future.

But, interestingly enough, just two years before my amazing run for the presidency of my student union—something that is very dear to my heart—there was another person running to become the president of his student union. It is interesting to see where both of us have ended up. That person, like me, ran to become the president of his student union. I am sure it was an illustrious campaign and that he served an amazing term as the president of his student union if he won—I do not know if he did; maybe he did. But I have seen the flyer that he used when he was running for the presidency of the student union. Of course, I am speaking of the now Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham. Everyone here would be a fan of BuzzFeed. I am certainly a fan of BuzzFeed. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, you are a great appreciator of the works of Mark Di Stefano and, like me, you are probably gutted to hear that he is leaving our country and going off to the UK so we will not have him here for BuzzFeed anymore.

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

Shame!

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

It is a shame, isn't it? But that is love for you, Member for Newcastle. Anyway, Mark Di Stefano, the political editor for Australia for BuzzFeed, wrote a very instructive article called, 'The Education Minister's 1994 Student Political Campaign Is Very Funny Now.' And it absolutely is very funny now—great picture, great flyer! And what does he say on this flyer in 1994:

Simon Birmingham for President. Standing up to the Federal Government's assault on students & education …

How proud he must be almost 25 years later to be leading the assault on students and education.

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

I remind the member not to use props. You can read it to your heart's content but do not use it as a prop. Thank you. Continue.

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

I am sorry. For the benefit of those who are not able to see this, it is a beautiful flyer. There is a picture of a young Simon Birmingham, now the Minister for Education and Training. The phrase is 'Standing up to the federal government's assault on students and education'. Now he must be so proud to be leading the assault on students and education, a mere almost 25 years later. I was thinking about this and I thought, 'I wonder if there are any other interesting articles on the internet about Simon Birmingham's assault on students and higher education.' I came across—

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

Order! Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question or make an interjection?

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to draw to the attention of the chair that members need to refer to members and senators by their correct title.

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

Sure.

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

Yes. I have been careful to do that, other than when it was a direct quote, which I am entitled to do under the standing orders, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

Resume your seat for a second. I would just remind you of that very point. I take it that you initially quoted Senator Birmingham. But, if you are going to refer to people, refer to them by their proper title—in this case, the Minister for Education and Training.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and of course I will be careful, other than when I am quoting an article, which of course will require me to quote it properly. But let me tell you about this article, because I know you are going to love it. It is written by 'the Backburner'. I know that we are all gutted to hear that the Backburner will not be continuing. It is called, 'Birmingham Dismisses Student Protest As "Happening Since We Started Eroding Their Future"'. You could of course mistake this for a factual article. It is parody but it is hard to tell that it is parody, because in fact the minister has been out there eroding the future of working Australians and middle-class Australians by launching an assault on higher education. So I ask that the minister answer this place and the people of Australia: how is it fair to increase university fees; how is it fair to cut public funding to universities; how is it fair to lower the threshold for repayment of contributions down to $42,000; and what does the minister expect this will do for the economy and our society?

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

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

Order! The minister will have his chance shortly.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the pleasure of asking a question of Minister Josh Frydenberg, who is representing the Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham. The education reforms of the Turnbull government will finally address a glaring injustice in the schools funding debate, an injustice that I have spoken about many times in this place, and I no doubt will continue to do so for some time. To put it simply, the share of schools funding in regional Western Australia has been nothing short of a joke in the past. On a sliding scale of need, we are sadly up around the top of the ladder. We have the greatest disparity with the clear needs of our students, who are under-represented in school completion rates, mean grades and higher education take-up. By most measures, we are in serious need. We have finally had those issues addressed, by a government that I am very proud to be a part of, a government that actually cares about regional Australia and its future.

Just last week I visited a school in my electorate, in Geraldton, and spoke about the importance of these changes for regional Australia. Under the coalition's model, this school stands to receive roughly double the amount of federal funding per student by 2027, compared to what they are currently receiving. That translates to an extra $3 million over 10 years and will mean that, by 2027, they are receiving $4,000 per student from the government, versus the 2,000 pitiful dollars that they are currently receiving. I think we can all agree here that that is indeed a very fantastic result for that tiny little school in South Geraldton.

It is worth ruminating on what those members opposite have done in the past for that little primary school in the Mid West of Western Australia. Of all the special deals that the Labor Party have cut to gain influence and support through the little games and the dodgy deals that they have been able to accumulate over the years, it is interesting to note that not one of those special dodgy deals ever benefited a school in regional Western Australia. Perhaps the member for Sydney and her colleagues believe that the expensive private schools in the member for Sydney's electorate deserve more money than that small school in Mount Tarcoola in Geraldton. Well, I do not think so, and I do not think anyone here thinks so either. How anyone can say that the current model is equitable and fair is beyond me. It has rewarded those bad, dodgy deals made in the past and it disadvantages rural students and Indigenous students. I know that in the Deputy Speaker's electorate, Canning, they have also experienced this.

In Geraldton, the Geraldton Flexible Learning Centre—with around 87 students, 86 of whom are Indigenous—will be allocated an extra $28,980 per student in Commonwealth funding in 2018, growing to $40,842 per student in 2027, an increase of $13,006 from 2017 funding levels. Total Commonwealth funding over 2018 to 2027 for the Geraldton Flexible Learning Centre will be around $30.16 million, a total increase of $5.94 million. Over the next four years, annual average per-student funding to the government school sector in Western Australia will grow by 7.3 per cent. This is well above inflation and well above the wage price index. That means that funding for Western Australian government schools goes up some 44 per cent. I see that we have the member for Fremantle in the House here today. I will be very interested to watch how our WA Labor members of parliament react when we finalise this, because I will be very surprised if they cannot back it. In fact, I dare the WA members of parliament representing the Labor Party not to support these increases.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! Keep your interjections to a minimum, please.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These changes we will see will be a great improvement in remote Indigenous communities where, if you want to measure need surely there is none greater anywhere in this country. Djugerari Remote Community School with around seven students, all of whom are Indigenous, will be allocated an estimated $12,450 per student in Commonwealth funding in 2018, growing to $22,508 per student in 2027. That means that total Commonwealth funding over 2018 to 2027 for Djugerari will be around $1.2 million, a total increase of around $393,000. Minister, how will the Commonwealth's allocation of funding grow for schools such as the Geraldton Flexible Learning Centre, which is a Catholic school in Geraldton— (Time expired)

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

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this discussion today. The responsibilities of the Department of Education and Training are very important to me and also to members of my electorate. I welcome to the chamber today Claire, Loretta, Mim and Anika; it is lovely to have you here. I want to raise the matter of transition arrangements for Budget Based Funded services, including mobile services, under the Jobs for Families Child Care Package, which is a responsibility of the minister for education. Providing secure access to child care is one of the single most powerful things the government can do for regional productivity.

The assistant minister for education is aware of the concerns raised in my electorate and throughout regional Australia around the sustainability of mobile childcare services as a result of the transition to funding under the Community Child Care Fund, CCCF. While the government says it wants to transition these 42 services across Australia, sadly, for many services, there is nowhere to transition. Often these services are the only child care available, particularly in remote Aboriginal communities. Some services have already indicated that without certainty of funding they will not be able to continue. Some have already closed, and their loss is significant. The education department has released its draft Community Child Care Fund program guidelines, and it has undertaken briefings with childcare providers via information sessions around Australia, including one last week in my community of Wodonga.

Assistant Minister, I have some questions in relation to the guidelines for the restricted non-competitive part of the CCCF program that will apply to Budget Based Funded services—it is a specific part of this service. It is not stated in the guidelines how much notice services will receive on whether or not they have been successful. How many months in advance of the transition date in July 2018 will services be advised? There is concern that the assessment criteria asks applicants to describe how their proposal will support the service over time to 'achieve greater viability and/or sustainability under the new child care system'. Providers of mobile services in rural and remote areas argue that these services are never going to be able to grow their businesses in the long term, simply because the number of children requiring care will fluctuate. They are not designed to grow. Service providers are concerned that they cannot guarantee that they will meet this criteria. Of course they cannot. Can the department assure providers that the assessment criteria to improve over time to achieve greater viability and/or sustainability will not be restricted to how the proposal represents value for money and whether, alternatively, it will result in achieving greater sustainability or viability over estimated time frames? Clearly, if you are not designing a service to grow but you are designing a service to meet a need, you want it to do that and you want to measure that.

Given many BBFs operate from buildings owned by councils or other third parties, will the department be taking a flexible approach to the requirement within the draft guidelines that indicate, where grants are to be used for capital improvements or a capital contribution, that in-kind contribution and designated-use periods may apply? The guidelines state that there will be no appeal mechanism for decisions to approve or not to approve a grant under the CCCF—is this correct? We hope it is not. Appealing decisions is a really important part of provision of service. Will oversight by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or some such other body apply to these decisions by the minister or his or her delegate?

The guidelines say:

The Assessment Team may apply an equitable funding formula to determine the amount services may require during their transition to the new child care scheme.

Could this funding formula be applied to assist providers with applications to the CCCF and planning? In leaving these questions with the minister and also department staff, I want to stress how important mobile child care is to my community and to those in rural and regional Australia. Sadly, we find we are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, and we need all the assistance we can possibly get from the department and from these guidelines to help us provide an essential service to all the industries in regional Australia. We want this program to work, but at the moment there are so many problems with the system that we are very worried about its ability to continue to deliver child care.

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

My questions are focused around school funding. I see schools as very central to our local communities. The first thing I did when I was elected was to write to all of the schools around Brisbane. I wrote to the P&Cs and the P&Fs and then to the principals to introduce myself as the new member for Brisbane and to begin what I hope will be a long and meaningful relationship with them in their school communities.

As the minister for education would know because he visited Brisbane very recently and we held a morning tea and a round table with almost all of the local schools attending, Brisbane is home to many great schools in both the government and the non-government sectors. In Brisbane, we proudly have some of the best government and non-government schools in Australia. We also have one of the highest proportions of Catholic schools in the country.

I have enjoyed visiting many of the schools around Brisbane so far to talk about the benefits of the Turnbull government's school funding reforms. I have enjoyed talking to principals, school boards, parents and students alike. It has been quite enjoyable because I know—and almost everybody that I speak to agrees with this—that the aims of these reforms are right. The school funding announcements made by this government and funded in this budget are fair. They are creating a system that is equitable and that is needs based, as David Gonski originally intended, and that is why Gonski has endorsed these reforms. The fact that almost all schools around Brisbane should receive more funding under the reforms also helps the discussion to be more enjoyable and easier for me, of course.

The transparency of the reforms is a really important element. It is key. It demonstrates the fairness for all to see, so I have been strongly encouraging all parents in Brisbane to check out the government's online estimator and see for themselves how much better off their school should be and to look at how the funding of so many of our local schools could change. In fact, I have written to about 20,000 parents right across Brisbane, showing them not only how their school looks under the reform but how all of the other schools around Brisbane look by comparison. I would invite the minister to expand on this by telling us how the Commonwealth's allocation of funding will grow across Catholic schools in my home state of Queensland or, indeed, how it will grow for government schools or independent schools too.

There is a lot of information there. For example, Our Lady of the Assumption school in Enoggera will be allocated about $5,960 per student in Commonwealth funding in 2018, growing to over $8,000 per student in 2027—an increase of more than $2,300 per student from the 2017 funding levels. St Rita's College in Clayfield will be allocated an estimated $5,670 per student in Commonwealth funding in 2018, growing to more than $7,700 per student in 2027—an increase of over $2,250 per student from 2017 funding levels. Reflecting the diverse backgrounds and the challenges of its unique student cohort, St James College in Spring Hill will be allocated an estimated $11,740 per student in Commonwealth funding in 2018, growing to almost $16,000 per student in 2027—an increase of more than $4,500 per student on 2017 funding levels. That will add up to a total increase allocated to St James College of around $9.8 million in additional funding over the 10 years.

It is important to get into these details because then you realise what has been so wrong with the model up until now and how unfair Labor's approach has been in the past when it comes to school funding, with their secret deals and their different approaches for different schools, and different systems in different states, which was the complete opposite of the model that David Gonski originally recommended. The minister may wish to confirm, in fact, what was said in a recent letter from the executive director of Catholic Education to parents in the Brisbane Catholic archdiocese—that they—

Ms Butler interjecting—

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

The member for Griffith will cease interjecting.

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

support the government's reform aims, that they are receiving a net 3.7 per cent increase in funding overall and that parents can expect to see no unusual fee increases within the Brisbane archdiocese as a consequence of these reforms. That type of feedback is important because, for most schools, there is, of course, this second step to their funding models. Of course, after the Commonwealth government provides its funding, state governments schools continue to get most of their funding from the state governments that run them. Non-government schools will continue to charge private school fees.

On top of that, there does remain this very important ability of the different systems—in Brisbane's case, like Education Queensland for the state schools and the Queensland Catholic Education Commission for Catholic schools—to redistribute the funding in their systems. We are very proudly backing them and their continuing ability to decide how they redistribute within their school systems.

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

I would like to welcome New South Wales Minister John Ajaka, who is with us today. I congratulate the New South Wales Liberal government for their understanding of the importance of a genuine needs based funding model and for standing their ground on agreements that were struck but which this government fails to honour.

Today, I want to draw the minister's attention to the detrimental consequences of his government's plans to cap places, introduce student fees and institute a tender process for university enabling courses. Make no mistake: the $3,200 fee being proposed by the Turnbull government will repel tens of thousands of low-income and disadvantaged students from enrolling in enabling courses, especially since these courses, unlike diplomas or bachelor degree programs, do not result in any formal qualification. Thousands of potential students will be locked out of higher education entirely. At a time when Australia should be staking our place in a global knowledge economy by investing in our people and developing our national skills base, it is utterly counterproductive to discourage participation in higher education

As the nation's oldest and largest provider of enabling programs, the University of Newcastle and the lower Hunter region more broadly has, perhaps, the most to lose from this proposal. The University of Newcastle currently runs three enabling programs—Yapug, Newstep and Open Foundation—which provide targeted training and tertiary study pathways for Indigenous and mature age students, as well as recent school leavers aged between 18 and 20. Together, these programs have helped over 42,000 students gain entrance into higher education since 1974. In fact, today close to 20 per cent of the current student cohort at the University of Newcastle entered their degree through an enabling program. That is how significant these programs are. They play a critical role in supporting thousands of disadvantaged students into degrees. Indeed, many participants are the first in their families to have attended universities. Many have to contend with multiple obstacles in order to succeed, but it is no coincidence that Newcastle has 1,000 Indigenous students enrolled. It is no coincidence that the University of Newcastle trains more than half of this nation's Indigenous doctors. Those incredible successes are directly attributable to the decades of hard work and Newcastle's steadfast commitment to delivering equity in education through high-quality enabling programs.

Last month, I had the opportunity to meet an outstanding woman, Makayla Guest, a second-year Indigenous student at medical school at the University of Newcastle. Makayla directly credits the university's Yapug enabling program for allowing her to reach her potential. Her words tell the story much better than I could. Makayla said:

Never in my remotest dreams would I have thought that I would have the opportunity to be studying to be a medical doctor. I never believed that I would have the ability to achieve and participate in something so meaningful. Not just meaningful to myself, but also, my family, my friends and my Mob.

For Makayla, and the tens of thousands of others just like her, it was the enabling program that gave her the confidence and the skills to undertake higher education. Like me, these students are deeply worried about this government's plan to cap places, introduce student fees and implement a tender process for universities' enabling courses.

Indeed, since the 2017 budget was released, I have been inundated with heartfelt calls and messages, from current and former students as well as university staff, about the dire impacts this proposal will have for our communities. They are all asking similar questions. So, on behalf of them, I ask the minister: what is this government's commitment to equity in education? How will the next cohort of Indigenous students, of those who are first in family to go to uni, of women and of potential students from low income families gain access to university? With the exceptional successes of the University of Newcastle clear to see, why on earth would you consider contracting these programs out to private providers? Unlike universities, private providers have no specific equity mission or community obligations, and many have no previous experience in teaching students who have faced prior educational challenges. I ask the minister these questions.

Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard a lot about the wide range of benefits that will result from the Turnbull government's new childcare package, but I would like to spend some time, in the consideration in detail of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 today, examining the important provisions of one particularly important component of the package—the $1.2 billion Child Care Safety Net. This is a new and improved approach to ensuring that our most vulnerable children are receiving all the care they need. We know that children from disadvantaged backgrounds benefit most from quality early-childhood education and care. That is why our new childcare package is providing additional support to those who need it most.

Within the overall childcare package, our Child Care Safety Net recognises that vulnerable children need extra support, and it does so in various ways. First of all, the Child Care Safety Net will support families earning around $65,000 or less who do not meet the activity test, by providing two days a week. That is two six-hour sessions at the highest, 85 per cent, rate of subsidy, which is an increase on the current 72 per cent rate of subsidy for this group.

Secondly, also under the Child Care Safety Net, the additional childcare subsidy will provide extra subsidies to families of children at risk of serious abuse or neglect, those experiencing temporary financial hardship and people moving from income support into work. Thirdly, families of children at risk of serious abuse and those experiencing temporary financial hardship will be exempt from the activity test and will qualify for up to 50 hours of child care a week, at a subsidy equal to 100 per cent of their childcare fees, up to 120 per cent of the hourly rate cap. Families moving from income support will attract a subsidy of up to 95 per cent of their childcare fees—that is up to 95 per cent of the hourly rate cap—and the hours of subsidised care will be based on the training or study activity.

The ACCS will also ensure that grandparents on income support who are the principal carers of their grandchildren—that is, who are caring for their grandchildren 65 per cent of the time—will not have to meet the childcare subsidy activity test and will receive a subsidy equal to 100 per cent of their childcare fees, up to 120 per cent of the hourly rate cap.

The $404 million Community Child Care Fund will provide grants to services to reduce the barriers to accessing child care. It will improve service viability, particularly in disadvantaged or remote communities. $61.8 million of the Community Child Care Fund, the CCCF, will be set aside to support the transition of budget-based funded services, including mobile services in regional, rural and remote communities. This funding will be in addition to childcare subsidies families using those services receive for the first time and will support the expansion of services into areas of unmet demand to increase Indigenous children's participation in early learning.

A key component of the childcare safety net is the $550 million Inclusion Support Program. Understanding that the ISP commenced last July in advance of the package, I ask the minister to provide an update on its implementation.

Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the plight of Catholic schools in my electorate in New South Wales. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon. George Ajaka, the President of the New South Wales Legislative Council. I have received hundreds of emails and letters from families across the Central Coast whose children attend Catholic schools in my electorate and who have been let down by the government's proposed new model for school funding, which will result in significant cuts to their school funding. I have met with teachers and principals from local parish schools who strongly oppose these changes. They are shocked and have been blindsided by this new model, which will significantly reduce the federal funding their schools, such as Saint Cecilia's Primary School, receive.

A government member: They are getting a 3.8 per cent increase.

That is not according to the diocese of Broken Bay. They are also concerned that the government's position means that parents and families do not know what their school fees will be next year. Parents and teachers across the Central Coast have many unanswered questions, and they deserve to be responded to. I would like to take the opportunity now to ask the minister some of those questions. I ask the minister: did the government consult with the Catholic education sector in my community in New South Wales before settling its position? Has Minister Birmingham consulted with the sector since announcing the model? If so, what has been their response?

Catholic schools educate around 20 per cent of Australian school children. Families in these Catholic schools deserve to be treated fairly. Some 31 per cent of students educated by Catholic and independent schools are identified as students with some level of disability or higher learning needs, which is considerably higher than in the government school sector. Many families choose Catholic and independent schools because of a particular service or support these schools may be able to provide for their child with a disability or higher learning needs, and they are often supported by the school providing subsidised fees. Does the minister acknowledge that not all students in nongovernment schools pay full or part fees? The new model is likely to impact particularly heavily on those families. Has the government considered a mechanism to support non-fee-paying students? What has the government done to properly consider the impact their model will have on students with disability, particularly those in nongovernment schools?

I will now quote from some of my constituents, and I put these questions directly to the minister:

Our students require extensive assistance and their parents have jumped through bureaucratic and medical hoops to gain funding, so why are their needs deemed unworthy of additional assistance now?

This is from another parent:

Some teachers in our small system of Broken Bay diocese schools are at risk of losing their jobs. Will this really improve students' learning?

And this is from another parent:

Personally, our family chose Catholic education for our two children. We are not rich. We work hard. We prioritise our budget to make this work. Why can't the government do the same?

Another family in my electorate said:

We rent a house in Toukley … and we are surviving on one income. Where does our financial situation factor in and why are we potentially being penalised because we choose to make sacrifices to raise our child in an education system that I am familiar with?

These are just some of the hundreds of letters and emails that I have had from parents and teachers in Catholic schools across my electorate—like Saint Cecilia's in Wyong, the primary school that I went to, or Mater Dei and Corpus Christi, which I attended for high school. These kids deserve good quality education. Can the minister respond to the very real fears families have for their kids' future and for their own financial security that have arisen from the uncertainty the government has created with this new funding model?

In my electorate there are close to 10,000 children living below the poverty line. In pockets of my community, around a third of households have a combined income of less than $600 per week. Many of these families send their children to Catholic schools, and I am very concerned that the proposed new model of school funding will have a profound impact on their families and their budgets. The government must adopt Labor's policy and restore needs-based funding in full to ensure that all children have fair and equal access to quality education that meets their needs in their communities.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to the Labor Party, do not look at what they say, look what they do. The member for Dobell has 44 schools in her electorate, which miss out on an average of $7.1 million each under the coalition's program, so she must go to the people of Dobell and explain why they are better off. She asks me in particular about the Catholic system. The Catholic system will receive a 3.5 per cent increase over the next 10 years; and 98 per cent of Catholic students will see a growth of more than 3.3 per cent per year. The Catholic sector already has the highest Commonwealth student funding in every state and territory, now and into the future. So yes; we do consult with the Catholic sector and we do continue to support additional funding in this space—and it was Sir Robert Menzies who first decided to provide funding for the Catholic system.

The member for Scullin has to front up to the 46 schools in his electorate and tell them that on average they will be $7.6 million better off under Malcolm Turnbull's plan. The member for Scullin may barrack for a good football team, but he is barracking for the wrong political team! In the Northern Territory, students are already getting the highest funding from the Commonwealth—now at $6,445, and out to 2027, $7,369. The member for Griffith asked me about higher education.

Ms Butler interjecting—

I can tell the member for Griffith that $16 billion per year is being supported by the coalition: compare this to Labor's record between 2011 and 2013 where they cut $6 billion. Again, do not look at what Labor says, look at what Labor does. Through the good work of Senator Birmingham, we have ensured that we will continue to have a generous loans scheme, that we will not have up-front fees, and that taxpayers will still fund the majority of university fees.

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

The member for Griffith is warned—and, as a general rule, I suggest you internalise your interjections.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Newcastle also asks about higher education: she would know that under the coalition, we will see a 23 per cent increase—through to 2021—in the funding of higher education, and that we are supporting regional student hubs, and that we have already seen growth in funding greater than the economic growth across the economy. We are basing our recommendations and our policy on the work of an expert panel which received many submissions. The member for Indi asked me about budget-based funding for childcare centres; there are 300 of these around the country, 22,000 students are supported, and we will continue to strongly support their funding of more than $60 million. Consultation on the guidelines closed on 13 June and it will be important to have these settled.

My own colleagues raised important issues. The member for Ford asked about funding in Queensland. We will see a 4.9 per cent increase for government schools, a 3.5 per cent increase for Catholic schools, and a five per cent increase for independent schools. The member for Brisbane also would be pleased to know about the increased funding in that state under the Turnbull government's plans, and the Brisbane archdiocese has also come out very strongly in support of the coalition's program. When it comes to child care, I was asked important questions by my colleague the member for Chisholm—and she would know very well, because she is an excellent local member, that childcare funding is going to increase under the coalition government, and that this increase will benefit nearly one million hardworking families. We are rewarding those families who have the longest working hours. Families who are earning less than $185,000 will be much better off under this program. We will see 230,000 families empowered to work under this program, so there continues to be strong support for child care under the government's plan.

The member for Durack was also pleased to know about the increases in funding across the state of Western Australia—4½ per cent for independent schools, 3.8 per cent for the Catholic sector and 6.8 per cent for the government sector. And, of course, the schooling resource standard will be much better funded under the coalition government than it ever was under Labor's 27 secret special deals.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, in this budget what we see continued is the Liberal government's appalling treatment of our TAFE and vocational education sectors. We know that since they have been elected the Liberals have cut more than $2.8 billion from TAFE, from skills and from apprenticeships. This is yet another example of an opportunity to try to right some of these wrongs which has not been utilised. What we know is that Australia now has 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than it did when this government was elected. We know that TAFE and vocational education funding and the number of students who are being supported are lower now than they were a decade ago, and this is despite an increasing number of jobs in Australia requiring vocational skills. It is clear that this government is not up to the job of ensuring that Australia has the skills that we need for the jobs of the future.

We on this side know that, in too many towns and regional centres, TAFE campuses have closed, courses have been scaled back and fees have increased. We see this particular problem with TAFE, and we have seen this government absolutely neglect TAFE, let the reputation of TAFE be deeply damaged and not protect what should be at the centre of our vocational education. Those over there have a problem with TAFE, and it was once again clear in the budget.

Recently we have seen that programs such as the migrant English program and the Skills for Education and Employment program have now also been ripped off our TAFE providers in regional New South Wales, in Tasmania, in Melbourne and in Adelaide, where we see the further privatisation of these programs. Other areas where these programs have been delivered include the capital region, Canberra; the Illawarra and the South Coast; north-east Melbourne, south-east Melbourne and the peninsula; Somerset; Adelaide north; and Perth north. In some areas there are double and triple subcontracts, not approved by the department, which will see foreign-owned for-profit companies taking the place of trusted TAFE providers in delivering these important government programs. This is yet another way that we are now seeing the Turnbull government continue to privatise TAFE, when we know that we should be going in the other direction.

When it comes to ongoing funding for VET, the Liberal government do not have a plan. They just wish that TAFE and VET would go away. We do not know the details of what the government really have planned for the replacement of the national partnership, but we do know two things. One is that they will only train Australians, and possibly they will only fund TAFE, on the condition that more foreign workers are imported. That is what the government's budget says. They will only provide funding for the national partnership if we continue to import more skills. That is crazy policy. It does not make any sense.

No. 2 is that they will not do what Labor is doing and guarantee that two-thirds of public funding, state and federal, will go to TAFE. We know it needs to be the backbone of the system. We made it really clear in the budget reply. The Leader of the Opposition outlined what we are prepared to do—

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

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

The minister will cease to interject.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

invest an additional $637 million into TAFE and vocational education, reversing the government's cuts in full. That is $637 million on this side, additional to what was in their budget. We are also going further, guaranteeing at least two-thirds of public vocational education funding for TAFE. We are investing in a new $100 million Building TAFE for the Future Fund to re-establish the facilities that have been absolutely neglected and left to be run down under those opposite. We are also setting targets for apprentices, one in 10 on all Commonwealth priority projects, investing in pre-apprenticeship programs and establishing an advanced entry adult apprenticeship program. The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party understand TAFE. That is why we all celebrated National TAFE Day yesterday. We have the policy to backup. We know it is not just words.

Perhaps the assistant minister can tell us what she did on behalf of the government to mark National TAFE Day yesterday. Did the government go out and mark it in any way? If not, why not and is it because they wanted to further their record of just neglecting, walking away, privatising and running down our TAFE sector? Why is the minister further privatising TAFE by letting the migrant English program and the Skills for Education and Employment program be run by for-profit, foreign-owned businesses who are replacing the contracts that TAFE used to have? Will the minister guarantee at least the projected funding under the proposed national partnership?

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

I thank the honourable member for her contribution.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister does not want any more questions. She is calling time and running away.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! I have just taken the chair and we need to owe this room a little more respect. I encourage your enthusiasm, but while I am here we will play by my rules.

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

I am pleased to present a very different view and discuss the importance of Australian Apprenticeships. Apprenticeships are an incredibly important pathway for a rewarding job and career for many young Australians. They provide the job and practical skills training combined with formal study to thousands of Australians every single year. In my own electorate of Berowra, there are currently more than 1,200 apprentices in training. The apprenticeship pathway provides strong job outcomes for young Australians entering the workforce—92 per cent of trade apprentices and 84 per cent of non-trade apprentices who complete their apprenticeships go straight into employment. Anecdotally, apprentices are more likely to become small-business owners and entrepreneurs than their peers who graduate from higher education. Apprenticeships are also critical to the national economy. Industries including tourism, hospitality, health and ageing, agriculture, engineering, manufacturing, building and construction and digital technologies are currently facing potential skill shortages. Increasing the number of young Australians undertaking an apprenticeship will help ensure our growing and emerging industries do not suffer this skill shortage that would inhibit their capacity for growth.

What did the previous Labor government do to encourage apprenticeships? They slashed employer incentives for taking on apprenticeships nine times between 2011 and 2012. This totalled $1.2 billion in cuts and it included a discontinuation of the $1,500 standard employer commencement incentive for existing worker apprentices and trainees in non-National Skills Needs List occupations. They then put this money into a five-year National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform with the states and territories. This included no specific funding for TAFE despite what we always hear from those opposite about TAFE. Two-thirds of the funding provided by the Commonwealth through the national partnership agreement was to allow the states and territories to achieve structural reform in the vocational education and training sector. They effectively dragged the money out of direct on-the-job apprentice training and poured it into VET administration. What did Labor's national partnership agreement really achieve? TAFE's share of national VET enrolments fell from 60 per cent to 49 per cent and apprentice and trainee commencements halved from 126,200 in the June quarter of 2012 before the cut to 61,700 in the June quarter after the cut. Over the five years of the agreement, apprenticeship numbers have fallen by 46 per cent—down from a high of 512,000 in 2012. The biggest decline was in Labor's last year of office when the numbers collapsed by 22 per cent or more than 110,000 apprentices. The Leader of the Opposition was employment minister at the time.

The Productivity Commission and TAFE Directors Australia said that the number of apprentices in training were directly impacted by Labor's incentive cuts. The Productivity Commission report into the workplace relations framework from December 2015 said:

… changes to a number of government financial incentives between 2012 and 2013 … appear to have contributed to a marked decline in the number of commencements in non-trade occupations from mid-2012.

The chief executive officer of TAFE Directors Australia stated:

The reduction in employer incentives in July 2012 was the primary reason for a dramatic drop in apprenticeship numbers …

When you cut incentives for employers to take on apprenticeships, commencements fall. These cuts continue to affect the numbers of apprentices in training today. Instead of supporting Australian apprentices, Labor tried to plug the growing skill shortage with foreign workers. While the Leader of the Opposition was employment minister the number of 457 visas rose from 60,000 in 2010 to 110,000 in 2013.

In direct contrast to the Labor Party, the coalition is committed to supporting Australian apprentices and their employers. Unfortunately we have been locked into Labor's failed national partnership agreement for the past five years. Despite this, the coalition has been working hard to improve the situation for apprentices and their employers over the past three years, by investing up to $190 million annually in the apprenticeship network, to make it easier for employers to recruit, train and retain apprentices, and reforming training package development to place industry at the centre. Labor's national partnership agreement thankfully concludes in just a few weeks, on 30 June. Further measures announced in this budget will allow the government to hopefully have an even greater impact in restoring confidence to Australian apprentices and their employers. It is a very important move. My question to the assistant minister is: what is the government doing to invest record amounts in support of Australian apprentices?

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

I am glad to have this opportunity to ask some questions about the impact of the government's budget on women, particularly through the government's changes in higher education. The government has abandoned what was the bipartisan practice of producing an annual women's budget statement, which I think is a shame. What I would like to know is whether the minister has received any advice or has given any specific consideration to the impact of the government's higher education changes on Australian women. This is particularly important at a time when Australian women face considerable economic discrimination and inequity. We are kidding ourselves if we do not continue to recognise that.

Under this government, over the last four years, that has got considerably worse. Since the government came into office in 2013, Australia has dropped from 19th to 46th in the Global gender gap report. We have a high and enduring gender pay gap. It is higher in my state of Western Australia than anywhere else in the country. The gap is present at every part of the life cycle, every part of the work cycle. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report this year, 2017, said that the average gender pay gap for graduates is now 9.4 per cent in favour of men, so that is from the very get-go. Young women coming through with a university education and going into the workforce are, at the outset, 10 per cent worse off in terms of pay and conditions than their male equivalents.

Sixty-two per cent—nearly two-thirds—of the 180,000 new Australian graduates affected by the government change to the HECS threshold will be women. They will be potentially hit by both a HECS repayment obligation that cuts in at a significantly lower threshold and an increase in the Medicare levy. It is important to consider the context of this threshold change and its impact and where it fits in the income spectrum. HECS was introduced a year before I started university, in 1989. At that point, the threshold was $22,000 per annum. That was the equivalent of 73 per cent of average male full-time earnings at that point. The new threshold that the government has put forward, the $42,000 threshold, is less than half of average male full-time earnings. It is $12,000 to $13,000 less than median income. That is when it cuts in. It is not surprising, on that basis, that organisations like the National Foundation for Australian Women and the National Union of Students have criticised this change on the basis that it has significantly negative consequences for women.

The government has abandoned the sensible practice of considering the impact of budget changes on women separately and in aggregate, but I would like to know if the minister has considered that impact through changes in his portfolio and, if not, why not. The fact is: a female graduate on the minimum wage will have virtually no incentive to earn more or to work more. Has the minister considered the fact that, under the changes to the HECS repayment threshold, some graduates—most of them female graduates—would have more disposable income if they earned $32,000 a year than if they earned $51,000 a year? They would have more disposable income if they were paid $4,000 less than the minimum wage than if they earned $51,000, because of the marginal tax rates that this government is introducing. As Greg Jericho has written:

The proposed changes will see university graduates paying a lot more – both in annual repayments and total amounts due to increases in the cost of degrees. And the ones who will feel the extra payments the most are the ones earning the least from their degree.

It is worth remembering that this week the government has just hit young people earning less than the median income with a nice big tax hike, and two-thirds of those young people will be women. I would like the minister to explain why the government is introducing a change to university funding arrangements through HECS that will disproportionately impact women, that will discourage greater female workplace participation at precisely the time when we need the reverse, and that will make the existing gender gap in pay and overall material wellbeing for women significantly worse at a time when it needs targeted policy and programs to move it in the other direction.

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

Just before I hand the call to the member for Boothby, I just want to make a comment for the benefit of the room. The member for McPherson, the assistant minister, will make a comment towards the end, but it is my intention to go alternately, in line with what I believe the procedures for the consideration in detail process are. So I give the call to the member for Boothby.

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I must say it is a great honour to be able to ask some questions of two outstanding ministers today. I am very excited about this topic, because the Turnbull government's $1.5 billion Skilling Australians Fund was one of the many significant announcements that we made in last month's federal budget. I am very excited by the opportunities it will provide to industries, businesses and people in my electorate and, indeed, throughout Australia. By re-engineering the partnership between the Commonwealth and the states and territories, the Turnbull government will set clear objectives to achieve better outcomes and create an extra 300,000 apprenticeships over the next four years.

Businesses that benefit from employing overseas trained workers on new temporary skills shortage visas, as well as certain permanent visas, will be required to contribute to the new Skilling Australians Fund. The fund deliberately targets boosting apprenticeship numbers, for very good reason. Without action, our growing and emerging industries face a looming skills shortage that threatens their capacity for continued growth. That would be very bad news for the Australian economy.

Like so many problems we are fixing, this one can be traced back to Labor's mismanagement when last in government. Those sitting opposite are all responsible. Between 2011 and 2013, Labor slashed $1.2 billion from employer incentives to take on an apprentice. In 2012, they established a National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, committing the Commonwealth to providing $1.75 billion to states and territories over five years. Just one-third of that, around $600 million, was allocated to training outcomes. No money was allocated to TAFE. The result of Labor's cuts to employer incentives and the national partnership agreement was a steep decline in the number of Australian apprentices. In fact, in Labor's last year in office, from June 2012 to 2013—and thank goodness it was that long ago now—apprentices suffered their biggest annual decline on record, falling by 110,000, or 22 per cent. Over the life of Labor's funding agreement, apprentice numbers in total collapsed by over 46 per cent. That is absolutely disgraceful. In my own electorate of Boothby, the number of apprentices and trainees has declined by 1,481. Nationally, TAFE's share of vocational education students also dropped from 60 per cent to 49 per cent. These are the sorts of results we see under Labor governments.

Mercifully for our vocational education and skills sector, Labor's funding arrangement will end on 30 June and be replaced by the Turnbull government's Skilling Australians Fund. The fund is being established after extensive consultation with key stakeholders, including industry and employers. The Skilling Australians Fund will provide an average of $367.5 million a year to improve training outcomes, compared to around $130 million a year under Labor's funding deal. My own state of South Australia will be around $67 million a year better off when it comes to skills training under the Turnbull government.

Under the new arrangement, states and territories will be asked to submit project proposals that focus on boosting apprenticeships in priority industries and occupations. To be approved, they must match Commonwealth funding, and the project must identify clear outcome targets. Of particular interest will be projects that target better outcomes and improved apprentice numbers in rural and regional areas. As someone who grew up in a rural and regional area, I say that is wonderful news for our country people. We recognise that, while those living in rural and regional areas account for only 29 per cent of the population, they make up around 37 per cent of those in the vocational education and apprenticeship sectors.

Along with providing the skilled workforce Australian industries need to grow, the Skilling Australians Fund is also an important part of our government's commitment to raising the status of vocational education and apprenticeships. University is not for everyone, and there are many paths to a rewarding job and career. Absolutely, one should not be seen as better than another. Statistics show that people who complete their skills training have a greater chance of moving straight into a rewarding job and career.

I have an important question for the minister: I am very interested to know what the reaction from industry has been to this excellent range of announcements by the Turnbull coalition government.

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

Before I give the call to the honourable member for Griffith, it is the intent of the chamber that we conclude this debate at 5.30 pm. With the indulgence of the room, and I seek you guidance, once I give the call to the assistant minister it is my intention to follow the procedure. Do you want to hear from the minister at the end, which would mean that I would need to forego that last position if we wind this up at 5.30 pm? You do not have to answer it now; have a think. The member for Griffith has the call.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the opening that the assistant minister gave because the minister had to yet to arrive, there was an acknowledgement of the 2.8 per cent cut to public funding to universities that was contained in this budget. Part of that is the efficiency dividend of 2½ per cent to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme for the years 2018 and 2019.

As the higher education legislation is written, it appears that universities will continue to be on funding agreements of a one-year duration. If that is the case, it would be appreciated if the minister could advise whether that is considered adequate by the government and why. On the question of the indexation of the CGS payments, I ask that the minister advise what happens to the CGS payments after the efficiency dividend has been taken. Will they return to the 2017 rate or will they be indexed based on the lower 2019 rate? In other words, will there be an overall lowering of the Commonwealth Grants Scheme as a consequence of this so-called efficiency dividend that the government seeks to impose on universities?

A $3.8 billion cut, in fiscal terms, to public funding to higher education—which is a very significant cut and will have an impact not just on the quality of higher education but also on the workforce in higher education—will lead to significant job losses amongst academic and general staff at universities. On top of this, the government intends to take 7½ per cent of public funding to universities and remove it from the CGS, placing it into a separate performance and reward pool. I suggest the minister might have a better chance of answering my questions if he were to listen to them.

An honourable member: That is very generous to the minister but he probably should be listening.

The 7½ per cent reduction in public funding and the removal of that into a performance and reward pool will see universities, if they continue to be on a one-year funding agreement, not know from one year to the next what their revenue will be from government. In other words, 7½ per cent will be contingent on certain performance requirements.

The university sector is completely confused about this because the government has failed to announce what those performance requirements will be for the future years. If you are trying to plan for the future, for your staffing requirements for forthcoming years, not knowing how much the revenue will be makes that a little more difficult. If 7½ per cent of your revenue is contingent on unknown performance indicators, then planning for the future and for future staffing requirements is certainly difficult. Universities are concerned that this will lead to a greater casualisation of their workforces, and I am very concerned about what that will mean for the academic workforce and general staff workforce of the universities of this nation.

Can the minister advise what modelling has been done, if any, on the workforce impact of the 7½ per cent performance and reward pool proposal?

What is expected to happen in terms of allowing universities to engage in long-term planning for their staffing needs given this large contingent component of the higher education funding that is proposed to be introduced?

The member for Newcastle raised concerns about changes to enabling courses, including the removal of the Commonwealth loading and the replacement with a student contribution through HELP, and the tendering of the program to private providers. Unfortunately, the minister, even though he purported to respond to the member for Newcastle's concerns about the University of Newcastle and enabling courses, only took the opportunity to take a bit of a sledge at her about schools. He did not, with any specificity, address the enabling courses changes, which are a matter of great concern to people who are interested in improving the participation in higher education of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, disadvantaged backgrounds and first-in-family people—people like me who were the first in their family to go to university.

On top of last year's cut to the Higher Education Equity and Partnership Program of $152 million, these changes to enabling courses are going to make even more difficult the attainment of the goal of increasing the representation of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds in higher education and their participation in higher education, and the same goes for people from disadvantaged backgrounds more generally. I would request that the minister answer the questions posed by the member for Newcastle in respect of the enabling courses.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be helpful if he would listen.

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

It would certainly be helpful if he would listen, shadow minister. (Time expired)

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been a number of questions that have been put this afternoon in relation to skills, and it is my intention to deal with as many of those questions in the next five minutes as I am able to do. I acknowledge the contribution of all members to the debate in relation to skills. I particularly note the contributions by the member for Boothby and the member for Berowra. I understand that, if time had permitted, the member for Gilmore was keen to speak in this afternoon's debate.

I would like to start by talking about the existing national partnership agreement, which continues until 30 June this year. It was a five-year agreement that was negotiated back in 2012, and I can say that I am so pleased that I was not the person who negotiated that agreement. That agreement provided for $1.75 billion over a five-year period. Of that $1.75 billion, $1.15 billion was for structural reforms. It was for things such as harmonisation between the states. The remaining $600 million was for training outcomes. The agreement is being replaced by the Skilling Australians Fund, which was announced in the budget, which is a $1.5 billion fund over the next four years. However, it is structured so that it will be a continuing fund into the future. That $1.5 billion will go towards training outcomes. If you want to compare the dollars under the current national partnership agreement specifically for training outcomes and the dollars in the new Skilling Australians Fund for training outcomes, you are comparing $600 million over a five-year period to $1.5 billion over four years. The Turnbull government is certainly increasing, significantly, the amount of funding that is available, particularly for direct training outcomes.

I note the contributions from one of the members opposite in particular who I note is no longer in this chamber. I think that the important thing to note out of that contribution is that there is clearly an absolute lack of understanding about the funding arrangements for vocational education and skills. There are two parts—at least to the funding arrangements that have been in place. These are arrangements that have been in place since the start of the existing national partnership agreement. One is a $1.5 billion special purpose payment that is made to the states. Within that is a range of funding options that the states can use to disperse funding to their needs within the state. The national partnership agreement sits on top of that. Of the national partnership agreement money, not one cent under the existing national partnership agreement was dedicated to an outcome for TAFE. So there was no specific funding that was allocated to TAFE under the national partnership agreement that was negotiated by Labor back in 2012.

The national partnership agreement that is in place had a number of things that are important to the situation that TAFE currently finds itself in. That agreement introduced contestability into the market. As a result of that, TAFE's share of vocational education students has eroded, falling from 60 per cent pre the national partnership agreement to 49 per cent now. In fact, if you want to look at the time period during which TAFE was negatively impacted, it was actually during the national partnership agreement that Labor negotiated. So the opposition had negotiated it. It had a devastating impact on TAFE.

I also notice that, in the proposals that the opposition had in the lead-up to the last election, if you look at the table that shows the number of dollars that the opposition was dedicating to TAFE over what would have been the forward estimates, it actually has zero in each of the four years. So under their proposal that they took to the election, they were providing absolutely not one single cent.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many cents?

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Zero. Zero, zero, zero equals zero.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under this budget it has become clear that the government has replaced uncertainty in respect of schools funding with inequity. Nothing illustrated this better than the fact that it took the minister less than a minute to pivot to Menzies. The future of our schools is in 1964—a golden age for members opposite! We are more concerned with the future of Australians and Australia. This government is walking away from the future because it is looking backwards. While you may have your disagreements with the member for Warringah, you and he can enjoy the warm afterglow of the 1950s and the '60s together, once you have resolved your other matters that you are discussing.

Under this budget, there is another factor when it comes to schools that the minister should respond to. What we know is that every Australian does not count when it comes to schools education. Some of the most vulnerable students in need of real adjustment interventions that increased funding would and should offer are students with disability. This government needs to act to support students with disability, their families and their school communities. Instead of providing much-needed support for those who need it, however, the government is continuing with a cruel plan to cut $23 billion from Australian schools. That will impact most significantly on those most in need.

I have been around the country, unlike the minister, listening to students with, and teachers of students with, disabilities. They have waited too long for education which is inclusive. The government is failing students with disability. They continue to deny students the support they need and deserve. In turn, this denies them the opportunities they deserve in life. According to estimates—

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

Member for Scullin, if I could just remind you: that is two minutes—

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I think, Deputy Speaker, I am entitled to go as long as I will, but I will allow the minister time to respond.

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

Absolutely, it is your entitlement.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The loading for students with disability will increase by just 2.91 per cent after removing indexation. The number of kids required to be supported will double. This means that the students with disability funding will increase from $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion while the number of students to be supported will double. This simply is not good enough. Is there a strategy in place? I ask the minister to ensure that all schools are able to properly understand and apply the results of the nationally consistent data collection and ensure that every Australian counts when it comes to schools education.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I actually wanted to add to an answer that I gave earlier. When it comes to the coalition's plan, the schools in Dobell will be better off under Malcolm Turnbull's government at an average of $7.1 million, including Gorokan High School by $9.4 million, Wyong High School by $7 million, Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic Primary School by $9.3 million. So if they vote for Malcolm Turnbull, they will be, on average, $7.1 million better off in Dobell, even though they have a Labor member. So let's get rid of the Labor member and put in a coalition member! When it comes to students with disabilities, the government is providing $1.6 billion this year—up from $1.1 billion in 2014—into state and territory non-government schools to support children with disabilities, and Commonwealth funding for students with disabilities will grow by an average of 5.9 per cent each year. To the member for Griffith: we are looking at multiple-year funding agreements and tertiary education. The efficiency dividend is a base adjustment of 2.8 per cent on average, and we will determine performance requirements in consultation with the sector. I remind the chamber that the coalition continues to spend more money on education, whether it is schools, whether it is tertiary education, or whether it is skilling and training.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the committee for the opportunity to make an opening statement. The Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio has 13 agencies that receive funding from the government. The 2017-18 budget provides the portfolio ordinary annual funding of $5.5 billion in 2017-18 and an average staffing level of 5,027 people. In the 2017-18 budget, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet itself has funding for 13 new measures, ordinary annual funding of $2 billion in 2017-18, and an average staffing level of just over 2,000. It also has a relatively stable level of funding throughout the forward years.

The three key principles that underpinned the 2017-18 budget were fairness, opportunity and security. The Indigenous-specific outcome 2 initiatives supported in this budget need to be seen through that lens. The government is committed to working with Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, and the Indigenous affairs measures in the 2017-18 budget demonstrate that continued investment. The budget facilitates the delivery of innovative and effective support for Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs: $146.9 million over four years will fund business support for the Indigenous entrepreneurs measure to provide services to businesses including workshops, business planning, and training. It will also facilitate tailored loan products, including capital assistance for Indigenous entrepreneurs who would like to establish or grow their businesses—and we want to see much more of that. The government will also provide $52.9 million over four years from 2017-18 to implement a whole-of-government research and evaluation strategy for the policies and programs affecting Indigenous Australians. The cost for that will be met from the existing resources of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. As the Closing the Gap initiative approaches the 10-year mark, it is timely to reflect on what has worked over the past decade and where greater effort is required, so this funding sees $40 million to strengthen the evaluation of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. It sees $10 million to establish an Indigenous research fund that will add to the Indigenous policy evidence base, and $2.9 million will go to the Productivity Commission to enhance its role in Indigenous policy evaluation and to expand the commission to include an additional commissioner with relevant experience in Indigenous policy. What gets measured gets done—so a real focus on understanding which parts of our programs are working best is crucial to continually improving what we do.

Two Indigenous portfolio bodies reported measures in the 2017-18 budget. The Torres Strait Regional Authority will receive $3 million over two years for the construction of fit-for-purpose office accommodation on Thursday Island from the Public Service Modernisation Fund. This will replace the current facility, which has aged considerably. This budget will showcase sustainable design in remote areas, incorporating solar and battery technologies, sustainable water use and other environmental design technologies. Indigenous Business Australia redirected $146.9 million for business support for Indigenous entrepreneurs. This is an extension measure from its Business Development and Assistance Program to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. As I mentioned earlier, this funding will be used to support Indigenous entrepreneurs who would like to establish and grow their businesses. I thank the committee for this opportunity to set out the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's outcome 2 Indigenous Affairs budget measures, and to give a brief insight into how they will benefit our community and economy.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I recognise the member representing the minister in the House today, although I am not sure what expertise he actually brings to the matters being examined. Let us hope he has been briefed well by his colleague in the Senate.

I do not need to explain to this House the perilous situation that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities find themselves in today. We know from the Closing the gap report earlier this year that things are not getting any better. Nor do I need to explain to the chamber the history of dispossession, injustice and discrimination experienced by first peoples in this nation, and the enormous personal costs. And of course, I do not need to explain that, remarkably, this government cut half a billion dollars out of the Aboriginal affairs budget. But it may come as news to the member here today that in February this year, the Australian National Audit Office found that this government's Indigenous Advancement Strategy was an absolute failure—useless, actually. Its implementation was utterly botched—not my words, the words of the Auditor-General, whose report said that the administration of funding for this program:

…fell short of the standard required to effectively manage a billion dollars of Commonwealth resources.

The Aboriginal community has been saying exactly this for months, but their complaints were all either ignored or not heard. For all the talk of those opposite about their commitment to Indigenous affairs, they simply were not listening, and still have not heeded the call for change.

The Australian National Audit Office found that the Indigenous Advancement Strategy did not involve any consistent assessments of funding applications against the relevant guidelines. It found that there was a total failure to establish performance targets for programs, and that there was no evidence that programs which received funding delivered the outcomes that they were supposed to. Most predictably, the Auditor-General found that there was no proper communication or consultation with the organisations involved. The government simply was not listening and, apparently, neither was the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs later dismissed the damning ANAO findings by saying:

This is a bureaucratic report, a very important report for bureaucrats about what box was ticked and what box was not ticked.

Let me say that this is not academic. I am very aware of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy; in fact, before becoming a member of this place, I was the chairperson of a small organisation that applied for funds. I understand the toing and froing, and some of the decisions that were—remarkably—made in relation to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. The very fact that the ANAO has been so critical of the implementation of the report speaks volumes for me. It is not just a report for bureaucrats, as the minister called it. It is a report that means a great deal to the Indigenous community. Many organisations have had to close down. Many vital services do not exist anymore. Those services were on-the-ground services. They were not based in a government agency; they were on-the-ground services that, through some botched effort of evaluation and decision-making in relation to the IAS, did not receive funding. This could well mean services into communities that the member for Lingiari represents, and into many communities across this country.

The government has committed $40 million to evaluate this project; the member said that, but this money is for bureaucrats and big corporate agencies to run evaluations. It will not deliver any additional services to Indigenous communities or Indigenous people on the ground; it will simply be $40 million going to the likes of Ernst & Young and many of those other big organisations, and to the government itself. It is like the government is paying itself for this. My question is: why is the government continuing with a flawed project, spending money on bureaucrats and not on services for Indigenous people? Why won't the government sit down with Indigenous people and design a grants program that meets their needs and their aspirations? That is my question. I do not need to hear fuddled messages from you; I just want those two questions answered. When are you going to actually talk to Aboriginal people about the design and the implementation of these programs?

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

Before I give the call to the honourable member for O'Connor, the time allocated for this debate is until 6.15 pm, and I have just remembered that, whilst we are in the consideration in detail stage, honourable members are able to ask as many questions as they like. I give the call to the honourable member for O'Connor.

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

I welcome the opportunity to ask a question of the minister, and I thank him for making his time available. I also want to acknowledge Minister Scullion and the interest that he has taken in my electorate of O'Connor, which is 880,000 square kilometres in the south-east of Western Australia and is home to around 5½ thousand Indigenous people, many of whom live in very remote communities and face all the challenges that come with that.

The questions I want to ask today are specifically about the government's support for the Indigenous employment through the Indigenous Rangers program. Could the minister please advise how the government is supporting Indigenous ranger groups across Australia, particularly in my electorate? Why is this investment in rangers so important to regional and remote Indigenous communities and to the protection of the environment in these places?

I know from talking with a lot of my constituents that the Indigenous Rangers program is very important, not only for the jobs it creates but to ensure Indigenous communities are able to work on and protect their country. For example, I have been talking with the Spinifex Rangers group, who I have been able to secure funding for from the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, to deliver land and cultural management across the Spinifex and Pilki native title areas. This will support 28 rangers to work on the land. Importantly, it will also deliver training and capacity building for these rangers as part of this investment in their employment. These rangers have a close relationship with their school, and the students participate in the Spinifex bush ranger program as part of their school activities. How does this investment in the Spinifex Rangers contribute to the Turnbull government's investment across Australia in jobs for Indigenous Australians and the important work that Indigenous Rangers deliver?

Secondly, I would like to ask a question about native title and how the government is supporting native title holders to use their land. I want to acknowledge the importance of native title to Indigenous Australians and the significant determinations that have been made across Australia. Forty per cent of Australia is now subject to native title determinations in recognition of Indigenous ownership of country, but it is important that we make sure that native title does not restrict development and can be used to promote the economic future of Indigenous communities. Native title should be used to deliver jobs and commercial opportunities for Indigenous communities. How is the government investing in native title holders to deliver these jobs and economic opportunities?

I know that, in my electorate, organisations like the Goldfields Land and Sea Council and the Central Desert Native Title Services body work closely with native title holders and that they have the economic future of these communities they represent as the focus of their work. This is why I am pleased that I was able to secure funding for Central Desert Native Title Services to hold workshops with native title holders to consider what economic development opportunities they want to pursue on the land that they own. The minister will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that this funding has been delivered from capacity-building funding allocated by the Turnbull government and that this is the first time the Commonwealth has allocated funding directly to native title holders, in line with the Turnbull government's commitment to working directly and in partnership with Indigenous Australians. Can the minister advise how the government is supporting these native title holders?

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already mentioned in this chamber the history of discrimination against first peoples in this country. That manifests in a whole range of ways—education, health and economic outcomes for First Australians lie way behind those of the broader community. Of course, incarceration rates are one of the most stunningly disproportionate. In this country Indigenous men are more likely to go to jail than they are to go to university. By some measures we are the most incarcerated people in the world.

According to the Productivity Commission, the adult imprisonment rate for Aboriginal people increased 77 per cent between 2000 and 2015. For juvenile detention of Aboriginal children, Aboriginal young people are incarcerated at 24 times the rate of the rest of the community. You only have to look at the Don Dale experience to see what this means. These are real, human stories. Mothers, fathers, sons and daughters separated by a justice system are sometimes subjected to horrific abuse.

As my good colleague the member for Lingiari will tell you, the territory has the nation's highest rate of young people in detention. Ninety-four per cent of young people in detention in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal children. These are children who, in many ways, are incredibly disadvantaged. But how can it be that 94 per cent of children locked up in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal? And the numbers do not get any better on the top part of Western Australia and through much of that state. In my own state of New South Wales 50-odd per cent of young people locked up are Aboriginal. The story is not much better in other states and territories.

UN Special Rapporteur Victoria Tauli-Corpuz has described the situation in Australia as disturbing. On her last visit she said:

There should be a justice target that will look into the high levels of Indigenous people [in prison along with] the funds that are provided to be used for prevention, reintegration and diversion programs.

My question is a fairly straightforward one and goes to the heart of what the special rapporteur and Labor have been calling on for a number of years to the COAG process and to the closing the gap process. We have been asking that a justice target be included in that process.

Tony Abbott steadfastly refused to do it, and there is still no take-up of adding a justice target into the Bringing them home targets. It would, at least, put a marker for state governments, and I am sure state and territory governments will be interested in having that discussion. We are not playing politics with this, because these are real people's lives that are dramatically affected by incarceration. Look at many of the Aboriginal people incarcerated in remand and in jails in the south—I cannot speak for the north, member for Lingiari. Many of those people are in jail for six months or less for minor things, like driving offences. There must be a better way to deal with it.

Part of that is putting in a justice target to the COAG process. That would make us all more accountable, for those of us in the federal parliament but also for state and territory governments. That accountability, that target, would drive more effort in bringing down the incarceration rates. I was well around in 1987-88 when the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths took place. Many of us were. I very much remember what that said, and I have recently read the recommendations from the royal commission.

My question is to the minister representing the minister in the other place. Why won't the government sit down with the states and territories and heed the calls of Labor, the community sector, Indigenous leaders and the United Nations and do something to reverse this terrible trend?

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a range of questions there: Indigenous rangers, native title, the ANAO report, incarceration and the justice target. They are all good questions. Let me start by answering the member for O'Connor's question on Indigenous rangers, which is a program I thoroughly commend. It has been an absolutely fantastic program. I know the member for O'Connor has been a very strong advocate of this program with the spinifex rangers, and he helped secure funding for $580,000 to increase the capacity of the spinifex rangers group in southeast Western Australia. It was a terrific effort to get that up and running.

Indigenous rangers are an important part of this government's commitment to provide more jobs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people whilst managing and preserving important environmental assets. That dual purpose has been part of the great success of this program. I am pleased to update the chamber that more than 2,500 First Australians are now employed as Indigenous rangers as a result of this government's investment of more than $500 million over seven years through to 2020 for Indigenous rangers and the Indigenous protected areas.

The government has been a very strong supporter of Indigenous rangers since they were introduced back in 2007 by the Howard government. We have maintained and built on this support by increasing the funding available for Indigenous rangers to record levels since we came to government in 2013. Funding is now at $70 million per annum, an increase of around 15 per cent on what was provided under the previous government. So this is a program where we are really doubling down and investing because we believe it is working.

Just like police and health workers, Indigenous rangers are frontline services that will be funded from now into the future, and we have committed to work with those groups to extend their contracts to reflect that commitment. They of course undertake very, very important work in a range of areas, protecting and conserving threatened species, marine systems and cultural places and addressing environmental threats caused by feral animals, invasive weeds, marine debris and wildfire. They deliver very considerable environmental and cultural benefits while supporting better outcomes in a range of areas from improved health to increased wellbeing and self-confidence, lower rates of violence and crime, and greater economic security. A number of my very close friends have been deeply involved in this program, and they have seen firsthand and commended to me the extraordinary results they have seen on that front.

In the 2017 budget, we committed funding to secure the Indigenous Protected Areas program at similar levels for another five years from 2018-19, and that includes $15 million for new IPAs to be used over time. Let me make a couple of comments on native title. The Turnbull government respects the importance of native title and the recognition of Indigenous land rights. We are just as committed to ensuring that we support Indigenous Australians to have their rights over Indigenous land recognised and that this leads to better outcomes for communities. We are providing just under $90 million in 2016-17 through to the end of this financial year to support native title representative bodies, service providers and native title corporations. That includes $20.4 million over four years for native title corporations. This is the first time that the Commonwealth will have allocated funding directly for native title holders. It will build the capacity of the PBCs to take advantage of economic opportunities and others arising from native title rights.

The member for O'Connor is absolutely right in saying that funding for native title holders has been provided to his electorate. I acknowledge the work that he undertakes with the local community to secure this funding—again, a hardworking local member from the coalition.

There were other questions here in regard to the ANAO. Can I answer the question from the member for Barton in regard to that report. The department has accepted the four recommendations contained in the ANAO report. We have taken action. We have implemented those recommendations. The evaluation at the end of the day is an important part of every program. It should be an important part of every program. It is a tiny fraction of the total cost of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy of $5 billion over the coming forwards. We are spending a very, very small proportion of that on evaluation, but it is crucial. It is absolutely crucial that we see how this program is performing and that we continually improve it in every way we can. That is part of this government's philosophy, and that is— Time expired

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

Can I just acknowledge the member for Barton and also acknowledge the traditional owners of this country that we are meeting on today. I am the longest-serving member of the parliament on this side of the Chamber. That means I have seen a lot come and go, and I have seen a lot of policies come and go, particularly in the space of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. I want to concur with the comments which were made at the outset by the member for Barton about the importance of what we do here and the importance of our actually addressing the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and doing things with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—in concert with them, not to them. I speak regularly with the minister. We have a commitment to try to work here in a bipartisan matter. But I have to say that when we are being critical—and we can be critical; and my comrade here is bring critical—we want to be constructive in the process.

I want to refer to Closing the Gap targets. As you know, in February of this year, the ninth Closing the gap report found that only one of the seven Closing the Gap targets was on track. The target to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018 is not on track this year. The target to close the gap in life expectancy by 2031 is not on track, based on data since the 2006 baseline. In December 2015, COAG renewed the early childhood education target aiming for 95 per cent of Indigenous four-year-olds to be enrolled in early childhood education by 2025. This is not on track. The target to halve the gap in employment by 2018 is not on track. The target, however, to halve the gap in Year 12 attainment by 2020 is, pleasingly, on track. Yet, in this year's budget, it appears to us that there are few initiatives to improve performance in many of the areas which are of concern. Only the employment target and the education target have any new money associated to them—and I will come to that education money at later time.

I want to make this observation: the member for Barton mentioned that $500 million was taken out of the budget in the 2014-15 budget. That still has not been replaced. Portions of it have, but there has been no replacement of the 2014-15 budget's $500 million, and there is nothing we can see in this budget. We would like the minister to inform us about what the government has done since the release of the report in February of this year to reverse the trend in each of the target areas and get the Closing the Gap framework back on track. Can the minister list the new initiatives under each of those targets?

One of the other areas that I want to refer to is housing. In 2008, the Commonwealth committed $5.5 billion to the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. In 2015, funding for the final three years was transferred into a new Indigenous housing strategy. The budget papers indicate the amount transferred was $1.1 billion. However, the website says that the total funding under the new strategy is $777 million, and many of the differences between this strategy and the old strategy are not clear, nor is it clear if construction has begun or what progress has been made under the new agreement. My questions under this heading are: how many houses have been built since the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing was converted to the Remote Housing Strategy; is the program on track to meet its targets; and is the government committed to extending this beyond the middle of 2018? I would appreciate responses from the minister.

While I am on my feet, I will make an observation about the ranger programs, which I am pleased to say were given additional funding by the government. Of course, it has not matched Labor's commitment to double funding for the ranger programs. I will just make the observation that there is a particular minister—I will not name him just in case he might get embarrassed by it—very close to this portfolio who said, not too long ago, that the ranger programs were not real jobs. They are real jobs, and I am glad that the government has recognised the importance of those jobs. They are very important not only in sustaining the environment but in providing culturally appropriate employment opportunities for Aboriginal people where they live. That is a really important outcome of the ranger programs.

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

I take this opportunity to ask a series of questions in relation to what the government is doing to support Indigenous and small business. The government have made supporting small business a priority through the National Economic Plan for Jobs and Growth, which, of course, includes our commitment to reduce the corporate tax rate of small businesses. I have taken this economic angle because that is how the Indigenous issues around my area of Murray, particularly around Shepparton and the Goulburn Valley, have been explained to me. They are very much economic issues. I understand the various tax cuts and the corporate tax rates coming down for small business, the immediate tax write-off for items less purchased for less than $20,000, the simplified trading stock rules and the options to avoid end of year stocktakes if the value of that stock has changed by less than $5,000.

In the electorate of Murray, supporting small business and employment is key to growing the regional economy and it is important that Indigenous Australians are part of that growth. In areas of the Goulburn Valley, we have the Yorta Yorta people and the Bangerang people. Only last week I was able to take the Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health, Minister Ken Wyatt, to the Shepparton region to inspect the Rumbalara elders facility. It looks just like an aged-care facility, however it is housed with Indigenous elders and residents and has Indigenous healthcare workers and Indigenous gardeners. It is an amazing experience to see what is happening there. As we know, Minister Wyatt is the first Indigenous Australian to be a member of cabinet. He was able to witness the issues firsthand. I have taken the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister Nigel Scullion, to look at all the facilities that the Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative have to offer in relation to sporting facilities, health facilities and aged care.

Elder uncle Paul Briggs has put a cost on the Indigenous issues around the Goulburn Valley and in particular Shepparton. He has done the work and he has compared the Indigenous cohort around the Goulburn Valley, particularly Shepparton, with mainstream society. He looked at the cost of domestic violence, alcohol and drug addiction, the greater rates of school refusal and truancy, unemployment within his people, breaking the law and all the issues associated with incarceration and he has been able to put a cost on it. He wants to have the conversation about how we can reduce his people's cost on society, how we can invest and partner with them to bring about better outcomes. As he puts it, this is a cost that is being paid now and no-one is overly concerned about this cost because it is just absorbed into the everyday spend of all governments. As well as supporting Indigenous businesses, he is looking at ways that we can continue to partner with Indigenous businesses to create better outcomes in a whole raft of areas that he has identified. Assistant Minister, given this raft of measures that we have implemented to support all Australian small business, can the minister advise whether we are introducing specific measures to support Indigenous businesses and boost Indigenous employment? Are there measures specifically for Indigenous businesses?

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

During the budget there was great fanfare given to the release of a document announcing a $138 million package: the 1967 Referendum—50th Anniversary Indigenous Education Package. Among other things, it included $40 million to the Clontarf Foundation, which provides programs for boys in schools—a very successful and very good program. It also provided $5 million for the Brisbane Broncos for Beyond the Broncos Girls Academy, $3 million for the Wirrpanda Foundation for Deadly Sister Girlz program, $1 million for the Stars Foundation and $4 million for Role Models and Leaders Australia. These are all programs for young women.

There were other moneys made available: scholarship money to the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation, $30 million; the MADALAH Limited education scholarships, $1 million; Yalari Limited education scholarships, $1 million. Then there is capital infrastructure money for the Cape York girls program, Power Community Ltd and the Young Australian League. My issue here is the difference between the funding of boys programs and girls programs. The boys programs are funded three to one, so almost 75½ per cent of the funding for programs went to boys and 24½ per cent went to girls. I wonder if there is an explanation as to this inequity.

I would like to ask the minister: what measures are being taken to rectify this situation? Is the minister able to explain the differences between the various programs funded under these headings for girls programs, how they differ from one another, how they are being evaluated and how the Clontarf program is being evaluated? Can the minister say what other funds have been invested in any or all of these programs? I understand that they have been given funding before. I am assuming that that funding is ongoing.

A real question that arises out of this is: once that funding period for this allocated money finishes, will there be ongoing funding made available? You can appreciate that these programs are set up in schools. They meet the expectations of the community, we hope; they have the involvement of teachers, parents and kids. If they are not guaranteed funding beyond the funding period, then their funding is likely to cease, which means the programs stop and people get disappointed. We need to know: what are the commitments being made by the government to make sure these program funds are ongoing?

It would be interesting if the minister could also explain the funding periods that these funds have been available for, specifically the ones I have mentioned. I note the Clontarf program is funded until, it appears, December 2020. When are the other programs being funded until? That is the $40 million made available. What are the funding periods for the other programs and, if they are different, why is that the case? What is the explanation for the difference? As I said earlier, what is the process for evaluating the success or otherwise of these programs?

I should point out that I have observed many of these programs in operation, particularly Stars and Clontarf because they work alongside each other in schools in the Northern Territory. I have to say, they are regarded as very valuable by the school community. They are very successful—as I read success—in retaining people at school and providing pathways into the future. That is a very important—but not the only—outcome. They are also important in improving social and emotional wellbeing and recognising the importance of mental health and other issues related to young Aboriginal men and women. I would appreciate a detailed response from the minister around these issues and, if he cannot respond himself, I am wondering if can make sure that he takes it on notice and gets back to me about them.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. I agree with him that many of those programs are wonderful programs. I have seen the real impact of the Clontarf program, for instance, in practice. It has had a profound and wonderful impact in my electorate over an extended period of time.

Before I get to the member for Murray's question, I want to finish off on this ANAO question with a couple more comments. What the ANAO audit did not recognise was that frontline delivery was maintained and outcomes were improved through the introduction of the IAS, of course. Since the implementation of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy in 2014, over 8,500 grants have been funded to a combined value of just under $3½ billion. But, importantly—and part of your question was about how we are consulting with communities to design programs, which is always a good question—what we have sought to do in the IAS is enable greater flexibility and responsiveness in program delivery through the introduction of the IAS itself to better meet the aspirations of individual communities. That is a real focus for what we are doing. We are listening to stakeholder feedback. With any program, it is as important to learn from the past as it is to put the program in place in the first place. There has been a real effort across government to achieve that.

I want to come back to this question of the justice target in a moment but, before I do, I want to answer the question from the member for Murray on Indigenous business and employment. I commend you for the question and for your focus on employment focused on Indigenous businesses. I firmly believe that there is no better way to get people into work than by having a business that they feel they are a part of, that they control and that is genuinely theirs. We are committed to growing the Indigenous business sector. We see it as a real focus. We think it will create more jobs and provide greater economic independence for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We also think that it strengthens the overall Australian economy and increases growth and company tax revenue, and that is good for all of us. It also creates trade opportunities internationally.

One way we are doing that is with the Indigenous Procurement Policy, which is driving demand for services that Indigenous businesses provide. The IPP gives those businesses an opportunity to bid for work, and this is another part of what I have seen in action in my own rural electorate. Indigenous businesses are required to demonstrate, like all other businesses, that they are value for money. We have seen them succeed in doing exactly that, and the great thing about this is that it is really working. We have brought forward the target of three per cent by 2020 to this year, nearly three years ahead of schedule. That has been a really terrific outcome. It has delivered extraordinary results in its first 18 months, with 708 Indigenous businesses winning more than $407 million in contracts. This is real, measurable success that we can all be proud of.

To support that increasing demand, the government has just released a draft Indigenous Business Sector Strategy for further testing with the sector. That 10-year road map is fuelled by what Indigenous businesses have told us they need to thrive. This ensures that the programs are designed through working with local communities and businesses, and we will be going out and talking with the sector over the coming weeks to ensure we get that final strategy right. As part of that strategy we are looking to establish the Indigenous Entrepreneurs Capital Scheme, which will work with those businesses that cannot access mainstream finance. One of the great challenges is accessing finance and helping people to understand what they have to do to access finance. That strategy is the cornerstone of the $115 million we are spending on the Indigenous entrepreneurs package.

In the time I have left, let me finish with a couple of comments on the justice target for incarceration. You raised a good question. We share your concern and that of many Australians about the rate of Indigenous imprisonment. I think it is a very good question. When young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men see jail as a rite of passage, we have really failed to do the right thing by them. So we are working with state and territory governments to introduce justice targets. Ultimately, they are responsible for the criminal justice system, and they have the levers to effect the important changes that we want to see and that I know you want to see. So it is crucial that we work with them so they can put those targets in place.

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

There is a final issue that I would like to raise, and I am hoping that I will get answers to those questions I have asked about the education programs. I do not mind if I do not get them this afternoon. I would like them on notice, although if you want to respond to me that would be bloody fantastic. I want to talk about the Community Development Program. Currently, the Community Development Program covers about 33,000 jobless people in remote communities around Australia.

Here is what we know about this program. Those under the CDP are forced to work up to three times longer than city based jobseekers to receive welfare payments. More than 200,000 CDP fines have been issued to people who are late or have failed to show up to activities. These fines lead to hunger and poverty in some communities. Although I know the minister does not believe that, it is, in fact, true. Since the project commenced in July 2015, less than 3,500 Indigenous participants have found full-time or part-time work lasting six months or more. A Senate committee has been told this.

It is abundantly clear, therefore, that, not only is the project not delivering real jobs for Indigenous people, it is actually pushing them into poverty. So I ask the minister—given the short time available, he will have a minute—given the evidence that this program is not delivering jobs and that it is driving people into poverty, what is the government doing to fix this program? Nothing, obviously—and I am happy to stay on my feet.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a range of questions we still have not got through, so let me turn to your earlier question about housing. The government is absolutely committed to delivering better housing outcomes for Indigenous Australians to remote communities. We realise how important that is. Indigenous Australians deserve to be able to live in similar conditions to the rest of us, and that is absolutely crucial. I am keen, and I know the minister is keen, to see state and territory governments improve the construction and management of public housing in remote communities. There is no doubt that that improvement is necessary. The current investment in remote housing will achieve 11,500 more livable homes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by mid-2018, so that is a very important initiative, and 75 per cent of the existing stock has been improved. Overcrowding will have fallen by 15 per cent in 2018.

The member also asked more broadly about the Closing the Gap initiative and in particular how we are performing versus a range of targets. We firmly believe we are making the right choices with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and they were and are big winners from the federal budget. The cross-portfolio budget investment delivered fairness, opportunity and security for all Australians, with a particular focus on First Australians.

The 2017 report Closing the gap revealed important progress in key areas. There have been significant improvements in the proportion of 20- to 24-year-olds achieving year 12 or equivalent, and we all know how crucial that is. At high levels of education there is virtually no employment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, and that is a terrific achievement. There are significant improvements in health. We have seen significant declines in mortality rates, greater access to antenatal care, reduced rates of smoking, a reduction in mortality from chronic diseases, and declining infant mortality. Reading and numeracy are improving for Indigenous children. There has been a significant increase for female employment over the longer term. You made the point about Indigenous programs being skewed in a particular way, but the truth is that we have seen a very significant increase in Indigenous female employment, and that is a terrific thing. Although the reports note that there have been real challenges with meeting some of the targets, we have seen some very real progress in those areas that I have described.

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

Thank you, Minister. The time being just after 6.15, the debate on this portfolio is adjourned until the next sitting in accordance with the agreed order of consideration of portfolios.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The 2017-18 budget was the first since the departments of environment and energy were formally combined. Of course, it is a major responsibility to secure Australia's energy future and to do so in a way which protects, promotes and enhances our environment and a series of other additional measures to protect some of our major landmarks.

In terms of energy, within the budget there was a $265 million package of measures. That included work around the gas industry and boosting gas supply, a $30.4 million commitment for new combined geological and bioregional assessments. This will help assess the potential impacts on waterways and aquifers in three onshore areas that are underexplored but prospective for unconventional gas. As we have seen recently, a number of state governments—Labor governments—have put restrictions on the development of unconventional and indeed onshore conventional gas—

An honourable member: Unconventional gas in Victoria.

that is right—much to the disadvantage of consumers in their own states. We would like to enhance the scientific work that is done to ensure that that is more likely to occur. There was $5.2 million to assess the impacts, the costs and the benefits of constructing pipelines to link northern and Western Australian gas reserves to the east coast through Moomba in South Australia. Pipeline activity is critical and there is no shortage of gas in Western Australia. And were the Northern Territory to lift its moratorium on unconventional gas extraction you would have 180 years worth of reserves that could make their way south.

We also provided money for the Energy Use Data Model. As you know, the energy market is changing dramatically and consumers are at the heart of this transition, and 2.7 million households now have solar panels and hot-water systems. So we are providing $13.4 million in the budget to enable CSIRO to enhance its Energy Use Data Model. We made it very clear through the Treasurer's speech that we stand committed to Snowy Hydro 2.0 and, indeed, open to acquiring a larger share or outright ownership of Snowy Hydro.

When it comes to the environment, I follow a long list of coalition ministers and Prime Ministers who have made significant achievements in enhancing our environmental protection. Malcolm Fraser protected Uluru and Fraser Island. John Howard established the EPBC Act. Tony Abbott banned the dredge disposal projects he inherited from the previous Labor government in the Great Barrier Reef national park. And Malcolm Turnbull is continuing with an announcement, in the budget, of this vein, of an additional $1.1 billion over seven years for Landcare. This is a very significant imitative given that there are 5,400 different Landcare groups around the country and 100,000 active volunteers in those groups.

We also saw $49.8 million committed to Macquarie Island over the 11 years from 2016-17. This is to upgrade the research station on Macquarie Island, which is a very important environmental climate change weather station for the collection of key data. This helps the Bureau of Meteorology, Geoscience Australia and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.

When it comes to the environment and when it comes to energy, there are many challenging issues. On any one day I will be dealing with issues related to sharks off the coast of Western Australia or the Barrier Reef or how we support boosting Indigenous rangers' activities across the country, or energy policy—making up for the mistakes of the Labor Party when it came to doubling of prices that we saw on electricity during their time in office. It is not something we would like to emulate. Indeed, we are doing everything we can to drive down power prices.

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

I refer to this budget's failure to provide additional funding to the Emissions Reduction Fund and I would like to ask a few questions around the abatement task for this government. According to Australia's emissions projections document, Australia's emissions in 2030 will be 592 million tonnes of CO2. This makes the cumulative abatement task between 2020 and 2030 to achieve the inadequate minus 26 per cent target, 1,055 million tonnes of CO2. How does the government plan to meet this task? The government claims the Emissions Reduction Fund, as currently budgeted, will lead to $50 million tonnes of abatement post 2020. They also claim that the National Energy Productivity Plan will provide around 100 million tonnes of abatement, despite the fact that most of the plan is just talk.

The model underpinning the Finkel report argues that the Clean Energy Target will contribute around 126 million tonnes of cumulative abatement. And that is if the minister actually manages to grow a backbone and stand up to the members for Hughes and Warringah. That leaves an abatement task of 779 million tonnes. To bridge this gap with the ERF would require massive funding. At the current ERF average price of $11.83, and without even allowing for inflation, this is a fiscal cost of $9.2 billion.

My first question to the minister, and I ask that if he does not know the answer he take it on notice, is: are there any other measures being considered to help achieve the 2030 target or will you add $9.2 billion to the already ridiculous cost of Direct Action?

My second question is: when will you announce additional funding for the Emissions Reduction Fund?

Turning to the 2020 target, official government documents show that Australia's actual emissions in 2020 will be 577 million tonnes of CO2. This is actually 4½ per cent above the minimum target of minus five per cent. The only way we get to the cumulative abatement target for 2020 is through the projection improvements, which I will return to; carryover of credits from Kyoto period 1, thanks to Peter Beattie and Anna Bligh; and the hopeless Emissions Reduction Fund that the Clean Energy Regulator said was not tested for additionality and the Prime Minister said was a fig leaf for doing nothing and was fiscal recklessness on a grand scale.

The minister's own department, in their projections document, state that projections have fallen due to lower electricity demand; worse-than-expected agricultural conditions due to drought; lower manufacturing output due to industrial closures; the closure of Hazelwood power station; and lower-than-forecast emissions from land clearing. The minister is claiming credit for a revision in our abatement task—in other words, because they have killed manufacturing, particularly the automotive industry; the drought reduced cattle production; consumers are responding to higher electricity prices by reducing electricity demand; and Hazelwood is closed. So we will probably achieve the minus five per cent target but then we will have an economic structure of plus 4½ per cent, which will make reaching the 2030 target so much harder.

I have three questions to the minister and ask that, if he does not know the answer, he takes them on notice. Firstly, has any country or the UN questioned the additionality of the Emissions Reduction Fund and therefore the legitimacy of the abatement claimed? Secondly, do the latest revelations from the Clean Energy Regulator around additionality demonstrate that the Emissions Reduction Fund is a giant fraud? Thirdly, how can the government be proud of reaching the minus five target, if we do reach it, through the de-industrialisation of Australia and the drought?

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

You would know about de-industrialisation.

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

Mate, you've presided over it for the last four years.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Shortland for his questions and confirm to him that the government remains on track to meet and beat its 2030 targets, just as we beat our first Kyoto target and just as we are on track to beat our 2020 target by 224 million tonnes. When it comes to the Emissions Reduction Fund, I think it has been a star performer. I think the land sector has been very, very pleased with the fact that 189 million tonnes of abatement have been met by the various projects that have been undertaken, at a cost of abatement of around $11.83 per tonne. The Labor Party knows that, when it had its dreaded $15 billion carbon tax, the impost on households was much higher than that—by a multiple factor. It was only pursued by the Labor Party because of its ideological position on this issue. The Emissions Reduction Fund still has $300 million left in it, and that should at least provide for one more significant auction—or more. We are getting a more mature market; hence the cost of abatement has gone up slightly, but it is still a very successful program.

I was asked by the honourable member how we are going about meeting our targets. We are doing it through a suite of policies, as the member for Grey would know. We have had the National Energy Productivity Plan. A building built in Australia in 2007 uses 30 per cent more power than a building built in Australia after 2010. We are doing a lot of initiatives through LED lighting and other appliance standards and the like. We believe we could get a 40 per cent improvement to energy productivity by 2030 through the various measures underway. We also have the renewable energy target. There were certainly some problems with the design of the renewable energy target: not providing for storage; not providing for FCAS, frequency control ancillary services; and not providing any geographical restrictions. These are the issues that Dr Finkel has taken head-on in his attempt to ensure a more stable system overall, because we do not want to see a repeat of the statewide blackout we saw in South Australia through the sheer negligence of a Labor government there, which did not prepare for the eventuality that occurred. So it is the Emissions Reduction Fund, the National Energy Productivity Plan and the renewable energy target.

It is an inconvenient truth—and I like to use that term, 'inconvenient truth'—for the Labor Party that we have seen a fivefold increase in renewables in 2016 compared to 2015. Look at the ABS numbers for jobs in renewables in 2012-13; it does not make for very good reading for the Labor Party. We have seen Australia, under the coalition government, become one of the five top destinations in the world for renewable energy investment. Another major achievement of the coalition government has been the work we are doing to phase out HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons, and making it a global effort to do so, because those forms of gases provide a problem for the atmosphere, and our work to phase them out over time has been very important.

In the time remaining, I want to point the finger at the member for Shortland and ask: why did he and the member for Port Adelaide fail to move their fellow caucus members and get them to support what they know would be good policy—for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to be able to invest in carbon capture and storage? If you were genuinely technology neutral, as the Labor Party's own election platform stated in 2016, then you would support a form of technology proven throughout the world and supported by everyone, from the CSIRO, Australia's Chief Scientist and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the International Energy Agency, as a means to reducing emissions from thermal generation and emissions from the industrial sector. That is why the people at Shell, the people at BHP, the people at BlueScope and the people of the Business Council of Australia came out to support it and welcomed the coalition's announcement of amending the legislation for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It goes to the heart of the hypocrisy of the left in the Labor Party. (Time expired)

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

I have had no luck this morning—

Mr Ramsey interjecting—

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

This is a debate, Member for Grey, so it goes from one side to the other. When the minister takes the call, it goes back to the other side.

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

I had no luck earlier today with Minister Hunt, so I am going to try again to get my question answered with Minister Frydenberg. Minister, I hold here the Turnbull government's 2017-18 budget document. Could the minister please advise on what page funding was allocated for vital water security and energy infrastructure for Townsville? Townsville has a massive water security issue. The Ross River Dam is currently at 18 per cent, we are on level 3 water restrictions and the Townsville City Council is pumping water from the Burdekin Falls Dam at a cost of $34,000 a day. The Burdekin dam is only 130 kilometres from Townsville and is one of the largest dams in Australia. Whilst 70 per cent of Queensland is drought declared, the Burdekin Falls Dam has overflowed twice. Why, then, hasn't the minister committed any funding towards the construction of water security infrastructure? Has the minister any plans to build water security infrastructure for Townsville from the Burdekin Falls Dam? Will the minister hear the chair of the water task force, Brad Webb, and commit funding towards vital water security infrastructure for Townsville?

We know that wholesale electricity prices have doubled under the Abbott-Turnbull governments. Nowhere is feeling the cost of skyrocketing electricity prices and the lack of federal government action more than Townsville. Reports compiled by the AEC Group state that companies like Sun Metals, a zinc refinery in Townsville employing hundreds and hundreds of locals, pay $10 million extra per year just for being in Townsville. We are seeing businesses close down, like Organic Pantry, due to high electricity prices. Businesses cannot afford any further inaction from the Turnbull government. Will the minister explain why the Turnbull government has not committed even one cent to energy infrastructure in the North? What plan does the minister have to reduce energy prices for Townsville and all of North Queensland? What action has been taken by the minister to reduce energy prices in Townsville and North Queensland? When will the minister actually do something to address Townsville's skyrocketing electricity prices?

Bloomberg New Energy Finance has predicted for Queensland to become the epicentre of large-scale solar development in Australia because of its excellent resources, sprawling grid and demand for growth. Does the minister agree with this statement? If so, why won't the minister fund vital energy infrastructure in the North?

Since January 2016 North Queensland has seen an unprecedented level of renewable energy investment activity, with over 780 megawatts of large-scale projects either commencing construction or securing financial support. The total of these projects will deliver $1.6 billion of infrastructure spending to the north and will create over 1,400 jobs during construction. Some of these projects include: one of Australia's largest solar farms being built in Clare, creating over 200 jobs; the $225 million, 148-megawatt Ross River Solar Farm, delivering around 200 jobs during construction; and Sun Metals' 125-megawatt solar farm, making them the largest single-site user of renewable energy, creating 210 jobs during construction. Will the minister join the Queensland Labor government, Sun Metals and other companies in constructing renewable energy infrastructure? Why hasn't the minister invested in the renewable energy boom in North Queensland? Why hasn't the minister invested in developing energy infrastructure in the north?

Bill Shorten and Labor are leading the charge in investing in North Queensland. In April this year, I hosted a 'back to work' round table with Bill Shorten. The water security and energy costs and constraints for Townsville were discussed. In less than a month, Bill Shorten returned to Townsville and announced $100 million for vital water security infrastructure and $200 million for construction of a hydropower station on the Burdekin Falls Dam. Why won't the minister listen to the community, as Bill Shorten has, and commit to much-needed funding for a much-needed hydropower station project?

Why won't the minister listen regarding the need for water security infrastructure? Will the minister match Labor's $200 million commitment and Labor's $100 million commitment? Can the minister please advise why the Turnbull government has committed funding for the Snowy Hydro project in South Australia but refuses to commit even one cent for a hydro project on the Burdekin Falls Dam? Surely, if it is good enough for the south, it is good enough for the north.

In December 2014, Meridian Energy shelved plans to develop a hydropower project in north Queensland on the Burdekin Falls Dam because of the Abbott-Turnbull government's winding back and destabilising of Australia's renewable energy target. (Time expired)

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

Can I just remind members that they must refer to all members of the House by their title, not by their name.

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

I trust that the member for Herbert will get a map and find out where the Snowy Mountains are. South Australia, Minister, is the epicentre of the energy crisis facing Australia, and it is a cheap and adequate example to the rest of Australia on what not to do with your electricity network.

In 2011, I first met with Alinta and was alerted to the impact that the proliferation of wind energy was having on their business plan. Throughout 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 I continued to meet with them. In 2012, I met with AEMO and tried to encourage some of our large customers to write longer term contracts with the Northern Power Station at Port Augusta, which was owned by Alinta—all to no avail, it seems, Minister. I am sad to report that Alinta announced the closure of the Northern Power Station in 2015. It had 15 years life left in it, and South Australia would not be facing the issues that it is now if that power station had not closed.

Alinta tried to get the Weatherill government to contribute $25 million for it to stay open for a further three years, which they chose not to do. Their next offer to the Weatherill government was to sell them the Northern Power Station for $1—one dollar. The consequent solution from the Weatherill government was to spend $350 million of taxpayers' money to try and address the problem. We could have solved the problem for $1. However, throughout this period the Port Augusta community, anticipating the eventual closure of the Northern Power Station, have been campaigning loudly and vigorously for a solar thermal power station with storage to be situated at Port Augusta.

There has been a plethora of renewable projects in South Australia. Last year, 47 per cent of our electricity came from renewable sources. That sounds impressive, but unfortunately it is an unmitigated disaster. Not only do we have the most unreliable electricity in Australia; we have the most expensive. Sadly, this is an issue that I warned of. Because there has been no corresponding investment in storage of energy, that has led us to this very fragile state in South Australia. Consequently, the subsidised surplus of wind energy when it is windy—and I must say that, in South Australia, that is a fair bit of the time—has destroyed the business model of the base-load generators like Northern. Every day a new intermittent facility is commissioned, every day that a new facility comes online—and the Weatherill government shows no intention of slowing up on giving planning permission to these new facilities—it further destroys the business case for Torrens Island and Pelican Point gas-fired power stations.

In 2015 I had the opportunity to lead a parliamentary delegation to the US, and I had the opportunity to convince them that it would be good idea to visit SolarReserve's Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Facility in Nevada, a 110-megawatt solar thermal concentrator with 1.1 gigawatt hours of storage—and I think that is a very important point, Minister: 1.1 gigawatt hours of storage. It is a very impressive facility, and we were all impressed. SolarReserve is very interested in building such a facility in Port Augusta. Subsequently, I met with an Australian company, Solarstor. They have developed Australian world-first technology—heat storage in graphite blocks, multiple towers, and revolutionary toroidal mirrors—and they too are very interested in building a facility in Port Augusta. I have worked with both companies. In the lead-up to last year's election, I elicited support from the government, with then industry minister Greg Hunt, to announce that the federal government would support a solar thermal facility with storage in Port Augusta up to a value of $110 million. In this year's budget, I was delighted when the Treasurer confirmed this commitment with an allocation of $110 million for solar thermal at Port Augusta by way of a tender process.

Minister, the question to you is: how is this process going, and where are we up to at the moment? Because we all wait with bated breath to see this become a reality in Port Augusta. The great emphasis that both of those proposals have on storage is of the essence to South Australia. We have more than enough renewable energy; we need to be able to store it and manage it.

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

We have an energy crisis in Australia. One of my questions to the minister is: are you unable or unwilling to put an end to this policy paralysis and do something meaningful about it? The Finkel review deserves full and fair consideration. It deserves better treatment than those opposite have been giving it today. The direction we take on energy policy will have major implications for all Australians—implications for the security of the network, for the reliability of the network, for the affordability of the network and for our transition to clean modern energy generation fleets. We are in transition. We cannot deny that. There might be some in the Liberal party who want to deny that, but they are in the minority. Australians are not ignorant of the realities of climate change and the need for us to lower our emissions. But lower emissions do not mean we have we have to endure higher prices for electricity and gas. Lower emissions and lower prices can be achieved, if only this government would sit down and talk about it. Minister, will you engage in meaningful dialogue? All the Liberals want to do is bicker among themselves, and accuse Labor of putting ideology over reality. Well, ideology is not at the centre of Labor policy on energy and environment—reality is at the centre of Labor's policy on energy and environment. Reality is at the centre; the reality of higher prices for electricity and the reality of climate change, meaning we must lower our emissions.

Now let us talk about coal—because that is all that this government, at least some sections of it, seem to want to talk about. They want Australians to believe that Labor is anti-coal. Nothing could be further from the truth. Labor is not anti-coal. I am a coalminer's daughter: I know the value of coal to Australia and I know the value of coal to my electorate of Paterson in the Hunter Valley. Many people in my electorate work in coalmines, many work in electricity generation, and many jobs in my electorate rely on reliable and affordable energy supply. Jobs are uppermost in my mind. But I cannot wish away what the owners of the electricity generators are saying: that coal-fired power stations will close. They just will. We know that is a reality. They are ageing and they are approaching their use-by date. But we have to get organised. This government has to get some energy into its energy policy. Coal will still have a terrific place in our energy mix and our export landscape—there is no doubt about that. But our reliance on coal will be reduced—and there is also no doubt about that. The only doubt is in the government's mind, about how they are going to take us forward into the future.

Our focus now has to be on how we make that transition from coal-fired energy to clean energy. What will the children of those power workers and coalminers be doing in the future? That is the critical thing. And what will those workers themselves be doing? And how will we ensure that that transition is just—just for the workers in the industry and just for the communities they live in?

Business groups, environment groups, unions, industry—these stakeholders all believe that the worst outcome for energy consumers and suppliers would be the absence of any credible and enduring energy and climate policy in Australia, which is what we currently have. The status quo is really, really hobbling us. Without reform, we will endure higher prices, reduced security, lost investment opportunity and stubbornly high emissions. We need careful review and considered decision-making that leads to the return of stable investment, affordable prices and reliable supply as we reduce emissions.

The Prime Minister's idea to subsidise new coal has been comprehensively rejected. The facts are: it would increase emissions, it would increase power prices, and taxpayers would be left footing the bill. You cannot have a clean energy target that defines new coal-fired power stations as 'clean energy'. The experts have all said: it is uninvestable; it is not clean. The Prime Minister needs to stare down the destabilisers and climate change deniers in the Liberal Party and back a plan for more renewables.

Labor welcomes the release of the Finkel review. We will carefully consider the recommendations.

My other question to the minister is: will you take the offer that was made to you today by the Leader of the Opposition for meaningful dialogue to correct this impasse that has been going on for too long now in Australian politics? Australians are depending on it. It is our future. The responsibility sits squarely on your shoulders. We are offering to meet you and to have meaningful dialogue on this. Will you come to the party and talk about the real solutions that can be achieved with the Finkel propositions?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Paterson for her question and acknowledge that, indeed, as she said, she is the daughter of a coalminer and committed to the coal industry and she sees it as having an important role to play into the future.

Certainly, we need to be technology neutral when it comes to energy policy. We have to focus on that trilemma that we are seeking to deal with: energy affordability and energy stability as we transition to a lower emissions future. Indeed, Dr Finkel and his expert panel made a series of recommendations, one of which was the clean energy target, which would see more than 50 per cent of the National Electricity Market's power coming from coal by 2030. There were also important recommendations around ensuring that there was a three-year notice of closure period, which would help avoid the problem we had with Hazelwood, and that there would be a requirement for renewables to provide their own storage, which may be a pumped hydro facility or may be gas or indeed may be batteries.

But the member for Paterson should rest assured that we are committed to dealing with that trilemma. I have to point out to her that, unfortunately, when her party was last in government, there was a doubling of the retail prices—a doubling. And that was due to a combination of gold plating across the poles and wires and the carbon tax.

We, as a country, do need to ensure lower electricity prices, because it is affecting the heart of jobs, investment and growth in this country. It is not right that we have the world's most abundant reserves of uranium and coal and we are soon to become the world's largest exporter of gas, and, according to ARENA, have the world's largest supply per capita of wind and solar, but we have rising prices. And that is why the government is investing in a series of measures to get more gas supply, to put in export controls, to rein in the networks and the retail prices, and to ensure that we give due consideration, as is appropriate, to Dr Finkel's report.

The member for Herbert I dare say has faced a lot of pressure in her own seat in refusing to come out and vocally support the Adani coalmine. There is 11 per cent unemployment in Townsville. It is the coalition who have taken a very positive step with the Townsville city deal as a means of supporting the 190,000 people across Townsville, the largest city in northern Australia and one which has great opportunities whether it is in defence, water security, tourism, our initiatives around the stadium, the CRC or the work that we are trying to do in the surrounding areas to boost renewable energy. Indeed, we have a very proud record in that regard. In 2016 there was a fivefold increase in renewable energy investment compared to 2015. I am proud to say that both ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation have undertaken significant funding during the time of the coalition government. ARENA is investing around $8.9 million in a renewable project around Kidston that involves a 50 megawatt solar plant and there is the work around a potential 250 megawatt pumped hydro facility. We know how important the combination of pumped hydro with the storage capacity that would provide with a solar project such as planned for Kidston could be in stabilising the grid and providing 24/7 power.

We are absolutely focused on water initiatives and water security in Townsville. We are making record investments in water infrastructure and undertaking the proper studies that need to be done to ensure the potential for new dams. We are working with state government colleagues there. We have reinvigorated the area with the Townsville city deal, which was welcomed by the mayor and by the state government. (Time expired)

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

I refer the minister to the recently released review by Dr Alan Finkel into the future security of the national electricity market, which, Minister, I say up-front I have not read. But I rely on the member for Shortland and the member for Port Adelaide who I know are more familiar with the report. I notice that the member for Warringah has been free in his commentary on the Finkel review without having read it. I recall that when the member for Warringah was Prime Minister he oversaw the closure of three coal-fired power stations. He seems to have forgotten some of that. In the spirit of good government—and I note the gasp of surprise from the member Corangamite at the idea of good government—I am hoping that the Turnbull government will be doing all that it can solve this energy crisis that has engulfed the country under this government.

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

The member for Corangamite on a point of order.

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

A point of order: on the basis of a misrepresentation that he made of me, I would ask the member to withdraw that terrible slur. It was an absolute slur and it was not appropriate and it was unfair.

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

The member for Corangamite will resume her seat. It is not a legitimate point of order.

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

Thank you for protecting me against the member for Corangamite. As she is well aware, wholesale power prices have doubled under the government of which she is a member. There has been an 88 per cent collapse in private investment in new generation on their watch. Under the Turnbull government, power prices are up, pollution is up and jobs are down. What a trifecta! I know that Dr Finkel is doing all he can to ensure that the National Electricity Market, which services the eastern side of Australia not the Northern Territory and Western Australia, can achieve the best for consumers and for business.

I note comments by Dr Finkel in Senate estimates on 1 June where he said:

… the actual cost of bringing on new coal in this country per megawatt hour is projected to be substantially more expensive than the cost of bringing on wind or solar.

I know that the minister is a youngish minister with young children and will be doing all that he can for the future of this planet. I know that he has a good heart and is trying to do the right thing. In light of that, Minister, I am asking you: do you and your party agree with Dr Finkel's comments to Senate estimates on 1 June that large-scale renewable projects are cheaper than new coal power stations?

Following this, the peak business body, the Australian Industry Group, has said that a new coal-fired power station could only recoup its costs if wholesale electricity prices are sustained at around double their historic average level. Given industry does not back the proposal of building a new coal-fired power station, and Dr Finkel has also said that renewable projects are cheaper than new coal power stations, do you still support the development of a coal-fired power station for Central Queensland and/or North Queensland?

Minister, I note that you referred to the city of Townsville, and I note that the member for Dawson's electorate extends up into the southern suburbs of Townsville, and you talked about jobs in Townsville. I note that the member for Dawson is calling for the power station to be state owned or owned by the Commonwealth; he has not quite made that clear. I am not sure if we have a lot of engineers and electricians working for the Commonwealth, but I note that the member for Dawson has a marginal seat and that you need the member for Dawson's support to govern. Will you soon be attending the sod-turning on the Malcolm Turnbull Memorial Commonwealth Coal-Fired Technology-Neutral Power Station? When you do that sod-turning, Minister, will you be making a comment to Dr Finkel about his statement, which I will repeat again:

… the actual cost of bringing on new coal in this country per megawatt hour is projected to be substantially more expensive than the cost of bringing on wind or solar.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the minister a few questions, and one thing I would like to ask him to confirm is the increases in the price of electricity we have had over recent years. I have had the opportunity—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member over there may wish to acquire this knowledge as well. He may wish to look at the statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. When I looked at them, I looked at the timing. Do you remember when Labor and Kevin Rudd came to power? I looked at that date, and I looked at when Kevin Rudd lost the office and it was Julia Gillard in between there—I think they call them the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd glory years. So what actually happened to electricity prices in this nation during those glory years? I looked at it, and when I did the sums on the ABS numbers I saw an increase of 118 per cent. So I ask you, Minister: is that correct? Did we see an increase of 118 per cent under the glory years? The member over there—I think the member for Moreton—was a member of a government whose policies saw a 118 per cent increase in retail electricity prices. To me, Minister, that takes a special type of gross incompetence to get a 118 per cent increase.

You might also wish to inform us of what has happened, according to the ABS statistics, to electricity prices under the coalition government. I have also had a look at when the coalition came to government, when the last Labor people were chased out of town, destroyed in a landslide election, and the coalition government was elected. I saw in that period of time a three per cent increase. So I saw a 118 per cent increase under the glory years of the Rudd Labor government, against, I think, three—not 30 but three per cent. What type of incompetence does that take? I ask the minister.

I would also like to ask the minister: are there any lessons to learn from the golden state of South Australia? What can we learn from there, Minister, about the brilliant policies of the South Australian Labor government? Surely there are some lessons that we could learn there. I would also like to ask you about the glorious Victorian government. Did they actually increase the coal royalties, and what effect did increasing the coal royalties have?

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

Order! The time for this discussion has concluded.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

It being 7 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the next day of sitting.