The SPEAKER ( Ms Anna Burke ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (12:01): Speaker, on indulgence, I would like to make a statement to the House.
I inform the House that last evening the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party elected me as the federal Labor leader and the member for Grayndler as the deputy leader. As a consequence, this morning I called on Her Excellency, the Governor-General. The Governor-General has commissioned me as the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia. She has also commissioned the member for Grayndler as Deputy Prime Minister and the member for McMahon as Treasurer.
On indulgence, I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer. Through the difficult years of minority government, the former Prime Minister has achieved major reforms for our nation that will shape our country's future. I acknowledge her great achievements in taking the Fair Work Act through the parliament. I acknowledge her great achievements in bringing in a national scheme for the testing of literacy and numeracy across the Australian school system, something we once believed was impossible given the institutionalised hostility of the states. Now the parents of Australia know the results of their schools and know the results of their kids, and as a result we can intervene as appropriate to support our children. I also acknowledge her great achievements in delivering better funding for Australian schools. And, on top of all that, I acknowledge her great work as a standard-bearer for women in our country: Australia's first woman as Deputy Prime Minister and Australia's first woman as Prime Minister.
I would also like to acknowledge the work that the former Treasurer did with me to prevent this country from rolling into global economic recession and avoiding mass unemployment. No-one should forget this work. When we think of people around the world and the hundreds of thousands who lost their jobs in other countries—millions in some—that was avoided here, and I acknowledge the strong work done by the former Treasurer in assisting me and the other members of the cabinet in dealing with that crisis.
I also wish to place on record the enormous contribution that other ministerial colleagues have made, and I will have more to say about them at a later time. The remaining ministerial arrangements stay in place for the present time. I will make further announcements regarding those arrangements at a later time.
As a courtesy, I would also inform the House that Senator Penny Wong has been elected as Leader of the Government in the Senate, and Senator Jacinta Collins as deputy leader in the Senate. Today the Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions in the portfolios of climate change, industry, trade, tertiary education, skills and school education.
As we all know in this place, political life is a very hard life—a very hard life indeed. Occasionally, it can be kind; more often it is not. It has been that way from time immemorial. I doubt very much whether in the future it will change. But let us all remember, particularly on days like this, that in this parliament and in this place we are all human beings. We all have families and we all have emotions. So let us try—just try—to be a little kinder and gentler with each other in the further deliberations of this parliament. I thank the House.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (12:04): If I may, Madam Speaker, on indulgence, respond to the statement of the Prime Minister. First all, I congratulate the Prime Minister on returning to the high office which he formally occupied and which he has been dreaming of returning to for three long years and three long days. I also commiserate with the former Prime Minister on what happened to her last night. As the Prime Minister has just indicated, politics is a tough business, but sometimes it is far more brutal than it needs to be. Sometimes it is far less fair than it should be. The former Prime Minister should have been dealt with by the Australian people at an election and not by the faceless men in the caucus last night. If the former Prime Minister's achievements are as substantial as her replacement has just indicated he believes, why was she dragged down last night? That is the explanation that the Prime Minister owes us. He owes it to the Australian people—
The SPEAKER: I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he is speaking on the indulgence of the chair, and it is being tried.
Mr ABBOTT: Madam Speaker, this is a fraught moment in the life of our nation. A Prime Minister has been dragged down. Her replacement owes the Australian people and the Australian parliament an explanation. Frankly, he owes the Australian parliament an explanation at this time.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has other forms of the House if he wishes to pursue this—not on indulgence. The Leader of the Opposition he has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: Very briefly, on further indulgence, again I congratulate the Prime Minister on his restoration to high office. May he elevate that office, and he would best elevate that office by explaining the events of last night and by telling the Australian people when will they get the chance to decide who the Prime Minister of this country should be and who should form the government of this country. That is the question that should be before this House.
BILLS
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2013
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (12:07): I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 11, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (12:08): This motion before the House is once again seeking to change the order of the day to bring forward this government's shameful changes to skilled migration that amount to nothing more than an attack on skilled migrants. It would seem that the events of last night mean that they may have changed the leader but they have not changed their policies. It is another Labor leader and it is another policy failure that this government is trying to force onto this parliament.
This parliament has sought to have this matter inquired into, and that has been frustrated by those on that side of the House. This parliament has been seeking to ensure that this government just does not ram more union dominated agendas and legislation through this parliament. The unions were running the Labor Party yesterday and the unions are still running the Labor Party today, because this bill which the now Prime Minister expressed some months ago real concerns about, as many others did, is now back on the agenda. It is back on the agenda of this government. This agenda of policy failures continues under this Prime Minister—because they can change their leader but they cannot change their spots. They cannot change their connections to the union movement. The union movement is hard-wired into this government.
One has to ponder what deal was done with the union movement last night. What deal was done with the member for Maribyrnong, also known by those on his side of the House as the 'kingslayer', to ensure that this Prime Minister would be restored—this Prime Minister who did last night what he himself decried being done to him three years ago and who for the last three years has assiduously worked to get his revenge.
Last night clearly there was a deal done, and the unions still want their pound of flesh from this Prime Minister. This bill was listed as item 11, and the very first thing that this Prime Minister wants to do is to put the union's legislation first on his docket. The first thing that he wants to do in this place is to deal with this union-dominated bill. And this comes at the same time that in the other place what has just occurred is that the government has voted against the restoration of temporary protection visas.
We all know the government's total opposition to the Howard government border protection measures, and it would seem that this government under this Prime Minister is no different to the one under the member for Lalor that this Prime Minister has succeeded. They will continue to deny that Prime Minister Rudd, now the restored Prime Minister Rudd, stands by his decision to get rid of the proven measures of the Howard government. He stands by that decision, because the first thing they did in the Senate was to vote against temporary protection visas.
And the first thing they want to do in this House is to vote for the union-sponsored legislation to crack down on skilled migrants in this country. That is the agenda—nothing changes. You can change the Labor leaders but you cannot change their dedication and undying devotion to the union movement. Indeed, Mr Howes may well need to sell his house. This is a government that has sold out to the union movement more often than anyone in this place would care to nominate.
The reason that the government want to bring this bill on is that they know that they have failed on border protection like no other. What this bill was designed to do, under the guise of the former Prime Minister, was to deflect attention from the government's border failures which have resulted in the number of illegal arrivals to Australia amounting to over 45,000 people. When the Howard government left office the average rate of arrivals illegally by boat was two per month, the budget was $85 million a year, and there were four people in detention who had arrived illegally by boat. Under this government, regardless of who the Prime Minister is, the budget next year is purported to be $2,900 million a year, there are over 23,000 people who arrived illegally by boat who are in the system, and we now have arrivals of over 3,000 per month.
That is the record. So I am not surprised that this government would want to continue with the distraction of forcing on this parliament this legislation that seeks to hide their border failures. I can also understand why they particularly want to do it with their new Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister started the boats, and he cannot be trusted to stop the boats. That is the issue with this Prime Minister: he started the boats and he cannot stop them. I imagine that he will come in here with all sorts of new theories—
The SPEAKER: Can I get the member for Cook to return to the motion before the chair.
Mr MORRISON: The reason that the coalition opposes this matter being brought on in the manner in which it is being done is that the government are trying to hide, cover up and distract from the new Prime Minister's record on border protection. That is what they want to do. I am sure the new Prime Minister will have lots of new thoughts and lots of new theories. He may even—but do not hold your breath—decide to apologise to the country, as he should, for removing the proven border protection measures of the Howard government.
The Australian people know that this Prime Minister does not believe in stronger border protection measures, because they have seen his record and because when he was given that opportunity in 2007 he chose to abolish strong border protection measures and instead put in place much weaker measures. We know that, as the boats continue to arrive one after the other, the Prime Minister—as he was then—will continue to make excuses. He went through a series of chronic failures. It was this Prime Minister, when he was Prime Minister previously, who had his minister for immigration give permanent protection visas to those who blew up SIEV36. That was his record. It was this Prime Minister who instituted the asylum freeze that actually hard-wired into the system the riots that later occurred under this Prime Minister's successor. This Prime Minister's bungling of the Oceanic Viking saga, with his megaphone diplomacy, had two significant impacts: firstly, it put out a clarion call to everybody around the world that the Labor government was a soft touch on boats—so get yourself to Indonesia because you can get yourself to Australia, because that Prime Minister is a soft touch; and, secondly, a la what this Prime Minister's successor did in terms of the live cattle trade with Indonesia, this Prime Minister's approach to Indonesia was to embarrass and to force his ego on that Indonesian government. We all know the outcome of that.
If, indeed, the Prime Minister is to go to Indonesia in a week or so, after he has apologised for the actions of his predecessor with regard to the live cattle trade, perhaps the Prime Minister should also apologise to the Indonesian government for the bungling and insulting way in which he handled the crisis over the Oceanic Viking. It was a crisis that was completely self-made by this Prime Minister.
This bill, which has been brought before this parliament, is seeking to do one thing: to choke the 457 system, which has been so important. It is a system that the now Treasurer, when as Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, said:
… they had the balance right.
I would have thought with the change in the line-up—which is a moving feast, as there are more vacancies sitting on that front bench today than we have seen in a very long time as they try to scramble together this chaotic, dysfunctional and divided government—that one of the things the now Treasurer would like to see done would be to honour what he said when he was minister for immigration in his discussions with the new Prime Minister, which is that this bill be discarded with; but that is not what is happening.
The first thing this Prime Minister is seeking to do is to have this matter brought on for debate and decided here in this House. As the Prime Minister moves around the country—as his goes into seats like Banks, Greenway, Parramatta or Reid—and talks about his support for skilled migration, he should remind those whom he is speaking to about his actions here on this day, because this bill is an attack on skilled migrants and it is an attack on the skilled migration program.
A government member interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: The minister interjects, but the minister does not even understand the significance of this scheme. He does not seem to understand that the 457 program is the way in which skilled migrants are increasingly coming into this country and moving onto permanent residency. The minister opposite has interjected and suggested that somehow the coalition is demonising skilled migrants here. What we know about this government is that they cannot do anything about stopping people coming the wrong way, so now they are going to try and stop people coming the right way—but there are a few exceptions.
There is the former Prime Minister's media adviser. Maybe he has got 29 days to find a job or maybe the new Prime Minister will take him on! Maybe he will, otherwise he has got 29 days. This bill is seeking to extend that out to 90. Maybe the 457s will continue to survive for those who want to work in the union movement in communications. The union movement seem to want to spend a lot more time on communicating the government's message than on actually representing those they are supposed to represent and promoting their working conditions and their wellbeing in the workplace.
This is a union movement which is completely locked at the hip to this government, and anyone who thought the new Prime Minister was going to have a change of form when it came to the unions or doing deals with the unions and the factions they run here in this place is getting a very early lesson: nothing has changed when it comes to this government. They can change their leaders as often as they like, but they cannot change the chaos that is happening on our borders, the dysfunction and division that is occurring in their own ranks or the team that they have on their front bench—which is very vacant at the moment. They cannot form a team that can produce the type of stability that we need—and this is a time when we do need stability. So the fact that the government want to chop and change the order of today's proceedings to try and ram through this union-driven bill, I think, is just a demonstration of the continuing division and dysfunction that is evident in this government.
There are two teams on offer here. There is the team that has worked together cooperatively on this side of the House for the last three or four years—
The SPEAKER: And there is the question before the chair.
Mr MORRISON: I raise this point, Madam Speaker, about the stability of the teams because this side of the House is prepared to deal with business as it was listed for today. I refer to the Daily Program. Nowhere on this daily notice is item No. 11 even referred to—nowhere at all. But it now makes its way off the Notice Paper right down the order. I know that the batting order of this government on their front bench has now been completely depleted, but now they are reaching down the order of the Notice Paper to try and drag things up to pursue the continued agenda of the previous Prime Minister and the continuing Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I suspect that minister has a bit of explaining to do to the new Prime Minister, but I will allow him to do that in his own time. Maybe that minister will be the same one and will continue to babysit the border failures that he inherited from his predecessor, who is now Treasurer. Maybe that will continue to be his job. But that is the thing with this government: the uncertainty regarding the agenda today and the uncertainty reigning along the ranks of this government, who do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha, or whether they are in a job or out of a job, or what they are doing, or what they are going to talk about.
The government have not only lost their way but lost the plot. They have completely and utterly lost the plot. They have lost control of its agenda, they have lost control of the borders and they have lost control of themselves. That is on display.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: It is on display as the minister at the table, now Deputy Prime Minister, tries to interject and further interrupt this debate for one purpose, and that is to try and ensure that he can continue to throw his weight around this place, now wearing the Deputy Prime Minister's title, and bring this matter up for debate in this House today. This bill that the government seeks to bring forward today is all about one thing, and that is continuing to pay off the unions for their support. The unions supported the last Prime Minister, and whatever deal they did with the member for Maribyrnong, the kingslayer last night, the government will honour that deal here in this place as they vote today.
Debate interrupted.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Mandela, Mr Nelson
The SPEAKER (12:23): The minister has sought the call on indulgence to clear up an issue. I am going to grant indulgence to the minister.
Mr GRAY (Brand—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism) (12:23): I rise to correct, and apologise unreservedly for, remarks I made last night at the Minerals Council of Australia official dinner held in the Great Hall. Acting on what I thought was reliable advice, I made the incorrect statement that the former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela had passed away. I wish to apologise for the error, and I have conveyed my apologies directly to the South African high commissioner and to the Minerals Council of Australia.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Debate resumed on the motion:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 11, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (12:24): In terms of this motion, the member for Cook has just spoken for 15 minutes on what is a standard procedural resolution: that we deal with the legislation that was before the House last night when the parliament adjourned. When the parliament adjourned, we had had the full suite of speakers from all sides of the House, and the crossbenchers had already contributed to this debate. Indeed, it was one of the longest debates that we have had in the 43rd parliament whereby every member has been given an opportunity to make a contribution. We then had a vote on the second reading and we had that carried. We then had amendments moved by the government and we had a debate on those government amendments and they were carried. We then had a debate about amendments moved by the opposition and they were lost. We even had a debate on amendments moved by the member for the Kennedy and they were also dealt with by the parliament.
The only section of this bill that remains to be determined by this parliament is the third reading. That is all that is to be determined. In terms of the third reading of the bill, it became clear last night that the member for Cook—in spite of the fact that commitments had been made by the opposition that they would facilitate the suspension of the House at the agreed time—chose himself to say that he had no regard for the agreements that had been stated and agreed to by the opposition.
From time to time in this place, agreements are made between the government and the opposition in order to facilitate arrangements. They are done on the basis of common decency and honouring those agreements. This agreement was made last night, just as later this morning, when this is dealt with, the member for Lyne, who is waiting to give his valedictory, will give it in response to a committee report, which is not an unusual circumstance in which a valedictory speech is given.
This proposition by the member for Cook is simply designed to, firstly, make the rest of the parliament and the nation endure a 15-minute speech that did not say anything at all; and, secondly, to confirm that in terms of agreements that are reached, those opposite, essentially, want to facilitate a ridiculous filibuster of this legislation. Everyone has had an opportunity to consider this legislation. There is no-one who can argue that this is not bringing something on—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: Well, the Notice Paper is the black-and-white document. Some of the people opposite have never read the Notice Paper in their life. The Notice Paper has the legislation on it. This has been dealt with, and I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER (12:32): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:32]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
The SPEAKER (12:38): The question is that the motion moved by Mr Albanese be agreed to.
The House divided [12:39]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
BILLS
Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013
Consideration in Detail
Debate resumed.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (12:42): I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as to allow the member for Lyne to address the House to provide valedictory remarks about his service to this House.
The SPEAKER: I am loath to put the member for Lyne in this situation. If you want the honest truth, and I understand the intention of the member for Cook, I am loath to use a member's valedictory in this way. But you have put the motion.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (12:43): I move the original question. I move:
That the question be put.
The SPEAKER: I had understood that the member for Cook might have been seeking another option and that is why I gave him the call. I had thought he had intended to move quickly to the member for Lyne, but I have misread that. The member for Cook has the call.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (12:44): This motion is put forward reluctantly because, as the Prime Minister said—
Mr Albanese: Speaker—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Dickson will not continue with that line. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Mr Albanese: My point of order is this, Speaker: the next business had been called on by you. There was an item already before the chair, and I moved that that question be put.
The SPEAKER: The clerk had called on the item of business. I had given the member for Cook the call as I thought he was going to propose something else. I did not think he would then eat into 10 minutes time. I am going to put the question. The question is that the question be put.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The suspension motion should relate to the motion before the chair. It does not. The member for Menzies on a point of order.
Mr Andrews: Speaker, you have accepted a motion from the member for Cook.
The SPEAKER: I have not!
Mr ANDREWS: You have accepted that motion; he started to speak to it. Everybody in this place knows he has started to speak to it, Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The member for Menzies will resume his seat. I gave the member for Cook the call as I thought he would be doing another—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Does it matter?
The SPEAKER: Yes, it does actually, member for Mackellar. The suspension must relate to the matter before the chair. As it does not, I am calling on the business of the day. The question is that the question be put.
The SPEAKER: The question now is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.
The House divided. [12:50]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
The House divided. [12:55]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (13:00): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (13:00): I do not wish to delay the House. It was my intention earlier to allow the member for Lyne to give his valedictory speech and I look forward to that speech. But it is worth noting that as we move to this third reading, this is a Prime Minister who has failed this first test of decency in this parliament. This is a Prime Minister who has imposed the union agenda again on this parliament. The amendments that I had circulated and tabled, and wished to be considered in the third reading, were important and went to particular issues in the bill. That opportunity was denied by this government and that is regrettable. With those statements, I am happy to proceed. To the member for Lyne, whom I have known for a very long time, I wish him and his family all the best.
The SPEAKER ( 13:01): The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
The House divided [13:05]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)
COMMITTEES
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Report
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (13:12): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and AuditI present the committee's report entitled Report 439: review of Auditor-General's reports Nos .11 to 31 (2012-13). I ask leave of the House to table the speech to the report.
Leave granted.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (13:12): I ask leave of the House to present executive minutes on reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
Leave granted.
Mr OAKESHOTT: I present executive minutes on reports 434 and 435 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
The SPEAKER: The ever patient member for Lyne, with his very cute and patient family in the gallery, now has the call.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (13:12): I have enjoyed some ironies over the last half hour: to hear my two-year-old son Ben yelling out, 'Hurry up!' to all of you is one. As well, to hear Scott Morrison on behalf of the Liberal and National parties moving a motion to allow me to speak is also greatly appreciated.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr OAKESHOTT: Yes, as I hear the stopwatches start and the bets get laid on how long I am going to speak for, I did consider being somewhat cute in final words, taking 17 words or 17 seconds to round out 17 years, 17 days and 17 minutes; but there was this overwhelming urge inside of me that says when you have the microphone to use it and say what you think. That won out in the end so, sorry, you are going to suffer one last time.
I have just come from a morning tea with some committee staff on the Public Accounts Committee, staff on the NBN committee, friends, people seconded from Indonesia, staff who have travelled from home, some who work here on a more regular basis, family who have travelled, Tony Windsor's family, and a few MPs and the Auditor-General who dropped in to that morning tea as well. The Parliamentary Budget Officer dropped in—the new Parliamentary Budget Officer—he said I have to stop calling him that, and that is why I have. Like all who have done valedictories and mentioned the staff in the building, I use this as an opportunity to just capture everyone in this place as a way of saying a very big thank you. I support strongly the words that have been said by everyone about the cleaners, the drivers and the works. You do a valuable job. There is a great spirit and camaraderie. The confidentiality is something that we should not take lightly. I have certainly appreciated it in my five years in this place and it is something that I hope continues and is respected.
It has been 17 years in public life. It has been six elections and five years here—and three at the front end of this under the pump from all of you. There have been 585 bills negotiated through this place, 300 private members' motions and bills and an awful lot of committee work. And the moment is right for me. I am basically a bit tired. A curious mind has explored this place and is looking forward to new challenges. I would not and could not go into an election campaign and into three more years and be a 90 per cent politician rather than a 100 per cent politician. So, to be honest to myself and my community, the time is right for me. To put to bed any of those allegations made by some that it is some sort of fear of losing, nothing could be further from the truth.
Ms Gillard interjecting—
Mr OAKESHOTT: Thank you, Julia. The ballot box is something that, if it was to be feared, none of us would be here. It is a game that we all have to in some way be ready to lose. I can say to everyone in this room that I hope you understand that any of that mischief simply is not true. It is less about any fear of losing and more about a respect for winning. In the next three years I have some other commitments, and four of them you can see bouncing around the public gallery, and hopefully they make it to the end of these words—hello. That is just an example of mine and of my heart. Whilst fully honoured by the joys of this place and the need for reform in our country, there are greener pastures and greater challenges for me.
I will reflect on some of the history—and it will be, I think, only five points. Firstly, I hope history when it is written does not write these as difficult years of minority government. These have been incredibly rewarding years for, I hope, everyone involved to be here in this moment in time—an extraordinary moment of time that none of us chose and there was no manual for. We all had to in the most subjective of professions try to work it out as best we could with what we had. It has been an enriching experience to be part of that and rewarding for the nation due to the amount of reform work that has been achieved. I hope the convenient rhetoric does not kill the reality.
I have mentioned the sheer number of bills that have passed—87 per cent of which were bipartisan and 13 per cent are in dispute. I know the Australian cricket team does not like that number, but 87 per cent bipartisan and 13 per cent in dispute to me sounds about right in any parliament with any government. In parliaments past or future, I think that sort of number would be the same. That amount of work has had some big issues of substance.
Agreements were reached at the start of this parliament and handshakes done. People looked each other in the eyes and said that we were going to do this, this and this. That has pretty well all been delivered. We have made it. The fact that we are here today on the last sitting day of a full term proves that point. Supply has been delivered. In a bipartisan way, three budgets have passed. Confidence has been delivered in the parliament. There has not been a motion of no confidence. Even today there was no motion of no confidence in the executive government or in a Prime Minister moved.
People are going to write about political parties and the internal issues involved. In my view, on one side there has been an enormous amount of instability on full show over the last three years. As well, from the other side, there has been a grabbing of the opportunity strategically to shake the tree as hard as possible and to destabilise it. From my point of view as, ultimately, a loyalist to the parliament and a loyalist to the office of Prime Minister, I leave optimistic and confident that parliamentary democracy and the parliament itself is stronger than all of it. Again, the very fact that we are here today proves that point.
I leave as someone who made law. I was joking about it before with someone. There are eight private members' bills that have passed the parliament. I sponsored two of them. One made it halfway there. It was the Bali bill that got through this House in a very emotional debate and then got knocked off in the Senate for a whole number of reasons. I think it is the unfinished business of future parliaments, whoever is in them, to resolve the issues in and around asylum seeker and refugee issues that are dressing themselves up as border protection issues and the either/or choices that are being put to the Australian community—it is either onshore or offshore; it is either community detention or mandatory detention; it is either Malaysia or Manus Island. This is not an either/or choice; it is going to be a little bit of everything. That is the answer. The regional solution and working with near neighbours is the direction that I hope remains the bipartisan direction through that Bali process, established in 2002 and continuing on today. So that was the one that did not make it.
The one that did make it, though, was the Auditor-General Amendment Bill, which allows the Auditor-General to follow the money trail. I was joking with the member for Melbourne and the member for Kingsford Smith earlier. Hearing the news that the member for Kingsford Smith is leaving disappoints me but certainly I will see him in the surf somewhere. I was making the point to them that the Australian Education Bill is arguably the significant reform of this parliament. I think to blow up a funding formula that was rubbish and leading to disadvantage is a credit to everyone involved. So, jokingly, I was saying, 'I got my Auditor-General's bill through.' The member for Melbourne kindly said he ran into someone on the streets of the Melbourne who said that was really important. So one person noticed.
Mr Windsor: Name him.
Mr OAKESHOTT: I think he worked for the Victorian auditor. So I can walk away doing something that not many have done—that has been to make a law. I also have just caught up with the Parliamentary Budget Office, a significant reform in all the parliamentary reforms that I think will stand the test of time. We will see more of the Parliamentary Budget Office over the coming weeks of the election campaign where fact checking and lifting of the policy debate to the higher values rather than the lower ones are needed.
I probably have to mention the '17 minutes' thing. Look, I own it. When others stood back I stood forward. That was an incredibly difficult time in Australian political history. There was no manual. Literally, we all were working it out on our feet. I will stand at the front of the queue to say not only that but also that there were bigger mistakes made over the last three years. I do not resile from those words spoken in that 17 minutes. I said I campaigned at two elections to get an emissions trading scheme sorted out in Australia. We have done it. I talked about delivering equity in telecommunications and the need to have the deepest fibre possible in our infrastructure. We are doing it. I talked about equity in education not only in the secondary education that went through the Senate yesterday but also in the Bradley reforms, which work for exactly the same reasons. I know they are changing the lives of many people in regional Australia.
I talked about constitutional recognition that both major parties have promised. We have got some of the way. We have a piece of legislation that says in the next two years we will maybe have a look at it. I really do hope that bill means something and that whoever is in the next parliament actually deals with what is the great open wound in this country. That is how we reconcile with the First Australians.
You can knock it all you want. I think I heard the jokes all around me when I stood up to talk today about 17 minutes. There are a few smiles from people now feeling guilty. But everything said in that speech has been done and has been delivered. I more than enjoy the jokes. I own that 17 minutes for the work that is contained within it.
I am incredibly proud of working with many people in our local community. As others have said in their valedictories, no-one does this on their own. There is always a support network and there are always the people who do the grunt work of applications and the detailed work of applying for this or that to allow us to then be the kelpie dog down here trying to chase it.
In the more than 12 years I have spent in state parliament the big feature piece of work was trying to deal with a privatised public hospital in Port Macquarie which really divided our community. That has now been returned into public hands and is expanding to meet the enormous growth on the North Coast of New South Wales. This year would be the 20th year of that contract. If we had not done that in a 'build, own, operate, transfer' model where there would not have been investment to match growth we would have one helluva problem in a high-growth community with enormous demands on services. I am not arguing the pros and cons of privatisation of hospitals, but that contract had holes all through it and we would have had a problem right now if it had not been dealt with 10 years ago, so I am thrilled that we are seeing future growth. I am thrilled that because of agreements reached in this parliament we managed to get the investment of $1.8 billion into over 130 regional hospitals, Port Macquarie being one of them.
I am also thrilled about the education ball that is now rolling on the mid-north coast. We had an incredibly low figure of only 12 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds having a bachelor degree or higher in our region. I think that would be reflected in some other regions of a low SES nature. When the aspirational Bradley targets of 40 per cent by 2020 or 2025 were made, our community laughed and said it was impossible and off the page. Then our local council said, 'No, we going to set this aspirational target.' We got skills and education forums working locally in three locations.
I take my hat off to Prime Minister Gillard—I will still call you Prime Minister—when she was Deputy Prime Minister and education minister she helped to start that strategy rolling. It is delivering on a number of fronts. We have the University of New South Wales who from 2015 will deliver a full medicine degree in our community. We have Charles Sturt University rolling out oral health clinics and a food, soil and water research clinic, and wanting to build a campus. We have a model where TAFE facilities and other universities in pathways and collaboration are working together to put the focus on students, not over the fence on other universities, the TAFE sector or the schools sector, trying to be competitive. That is the model that we have invested in that is now starting to bear fruit.
The point of mentioning both of those is the third one which I am most proud about at a local level—that is the culture for our community. We were a community that accepted indifference in representation. We were a community that thought excuses from government were just normal business—that is the way it was done. We have challenged that and hopefully proven that to be an unacceptable model for the future. I hope that, from the results we have seen from challenging existing political culture, whether it is a political party in the future that represents the area or not, the absolute blowtorch of the community will be on that representative to deliver. That is the point of the exercise for me, and I hope, in representation for all.
I struggled at the start of my career with wearing the party jersey. I could not run on the field with the two jerseys of political party and community. I know that others reconcile it in different ways in their heads. I was always that square peg in a round hole that just could not do the party line. I do not bear any grudges with anyone over the events at the start of my career, but I think the politest and most diplomatic framing of it was: I did not do my due diligence on them and they did not do their due diligence on me. I still maintain many friends within the National Party in particular and within the coalition side. Hopefully, those friendships can be maintained, as on the Labor side. Many friendships have been built over that same period.
At no time did our region lay claim to doing everything through this three-year period or through the 17 years. But what we have done is stand up proudly as a region and lay claim to doing something. At no time did I think I could do everything, as some reporting seemed to suggest. All I wanted to do was do something. At no time did I ever think I was the only MP. But I am one and, in that role, I leave satisfied that something has been done that I have contributed to.
I want to touch on three thankyous. When I look around this room I see a moment pretty well shared, and a good laugh, for something that has occurred with pretty well everyone in this room, including those upstairs—not over there; I do not think I know any of you, but I look forward to meeting you when I am out of this joint! This is a way of collectively saying: good friends all round and good luck. Firstly, the bloke sitting next to me, the member for New England. We went for a walk two days ago. Normally, when all your parties meet, we just go for a stroll and catch up because there is not much going on and we swap gossip. I was chasing him down to make sure we did the walk. I was going to tell him: 'I'm leaving.' He beat me to it. For those who are all getting a bit conspiratorial about the events of the last 48 hours, can I say that I literally found out two days ago that Tony was leaving and he found out about a minute later that I was leaving.
I consider Tony the best in the business. Hopefully, no-one takes offence at that. I had always seen Tony from afar. We are neighbouring members of parliament, but there is a mountain range in between and a horrible windy road, the Oxley Highway, that makes it a difficult road to drive in order to catch up. You get to the end of it and you want to vomit. It is not the sort of way to say hello. So we actually see each other down here more than we see each other at home. I had admired him from afar and then, at the start of this parliament—the start of these three years—there was that moment when all hell broke loose. What do we do? In any working life, you come across people who leave a huge impression and to have found someone at that moment I felt incredibly honoured and lucky. He leaves me with a lasting impression for all my days. I want to thank Tony for that. I consider his mix of honour in the way he does business, his smarts and that little dose of cunning that seems to outfox most of you in this place most of the time are the skills that, in my view, give him the title of 'Best in the business'.
Secondly, the person sitting next to Tony: Julia Gillard. I could say many things and I have said many things. I hope you have seen them over the last few days, because I have been in the public square saying, 'We all view our politics through our own eyes.' Australian citizens, quite rightly, form judgements only on what is available to them. I am the same: I can only form my judgements on what is available to me. I am not going to jump with the pitchfork mob and say that Julia Gillard is a bad person. She is a person who I knew a bit about as Minister for Education and Deputy Prime Minister but then, over the years, I got to know very well, because we had to. Through my eyes, she has upheld her part of the agreement. We shook hands at the start of this parliament, we looked each other in the eye and we said, 'We want it to run full term; we want supply and confidence to be delivered; we want to get some things done for regional Australia; we want a reform agenda through the parliament; and we want to lift parliamentary standards and committee work to improve.' We have done it. So for that, I dip my lid, and say, 'Well done, Prime Minister.' Julia, I also hope you got my text and I hope you do not mind my mentioning it. About 10 minutes before a party room ballot last night—we all get a bit of a sense of what is going on in the joint—I sent the then Prime Minister a text that said her father would be proud of her.
I am a father of daughters and very proud of it. Some of the things that have been said in the last three years have been discussed. They cannot be accepted, whatever happens from hereon. We have to find a way to get back in control of the public square and this is the place where that happens. The fringe has invaded the middle; it has to be put back on the fringe. We all deal with it. I remember sitting in the back of a bus in Broken Hill, on an NBN trip, and we all swapped stories about crazy emails that we all look at and go: 'I can't believe this is a view that is held in Australia today.' It is off its lead. We have got to do something about it and if it takes a few of us to fall on swords to fix it, then so be it. The nation needs to deal with it; this parliament needs to deal with it. I have been shocked, frankly, over the last three years to meet ugly Australia and just to see the width and depth of ugly Australia. I leave here optimistic. I am proud of my country. I think we are a resilient, entrepreneurial, strong and exciting nation, but we have got to deal with ugly Australia—we have got to deal with it somehow.
My final comment is to my best friend. Seventeen years ago I took a bit of a risk in a speech when I was not married and mentioned my girlfriend. I am glad that is not a broken promise. After 17 years I still consider Sara-Jane my best friend: while everyone else has said the same about partners, it has been an extraordinary effort that you have made over this time. You can see we have very young family—well, you can see two of them. Our family is so young that two can't look over the edge! Are they still there or are they ripping around the building? We have four young kids and Sara has basically done most of it on her own. I do not want to be that politician who stands up here and gives the guilt speech in 10 years time about being an absent father. I do value the role as a father and I do want to give it quality as well as quantity time. Sara, thank you. I know we are both very excited about the next chapters of our lives.
How close to 17 minutes am I—have I done it? I will finish just by saying: I did the best with what I've got, and if someone thinks they can do better, knock yourself out. I think that is the same for all of us. There is plenty of criticism that we attract. I will leave as the great defender of our profession, of the demands on all our lives and of the importance of the institution of the parliament, the office of the Prime Minister and the institutions and expert advice around here. I am ultimately a loyalist to those three and hopefully in the future more can join me. Thank you and good luck.
The SPEAKER (13:39): I thank the member for Lyne for a wonderful valedictory speech and for a wonderful time in this parliament, particularly his support in the new paradigm and his work in the chair.
COMMITTEES
Appropriations and Administration Committee
Report
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (13:39): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration, I presented the committee's Annual report 2012-13.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Ms MARINO: I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Ms MARINO: I just want to thank everybody on that committee and also the officers involved for the work as part of that in this parliament.
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (13:40): On behalf of the Special Minister of State, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment and construction of housing for Defence at Samford Road, Enoggera, Brisbane, Queensland.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (13:41): On behalf of the Special Minister of State, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development and construction of housing for Defence at Warner, Brisbane, Queensland.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr NEUMANN (Blair—Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General) (13:41): On behalf of the Special Minister of State, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the works, it is expedient that the following work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Fit-out of new leased premises for Australian Securities and Investments Commission at 120 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria.
Question agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (13:42): So that the member for Fisher is able to give his valedictory, I move:
That standing order 43 the suspended for this sitting.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The member for Fisher, on indulgence, has the call.
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) (13:42): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Most members who leave this place do not get to deliver a valedictory speech. I can recall in 1987, a couple of days before the parliament was prorogued, walking into the chamber and looking around sadly noticing that there were people in that parliament who would not be back after the election. I did not really appreciate that I was going to be one of them. So after serving 23 years in this place at the time of the election, if the election is when it has been previously announced, I thought I would deliver this precautionary valedictory speech. Of course, whether I run in the election or not will depend on who ultimately is chosen to be the Liberal National Party candidate for the electorate of Fisher.
No doubt my provisional valedictory speech will be overshadowed by today's events, but I would like to recall some experiences that I have had during my time in this place. When I first sought National Party endorsement in 1984 there were about 42 branches of the National Party in Fisher, with some 2,000 members. There were 11 candidates, or thereabouts, including Clive Palmer—and we have heard a little bit about Mr Palmer in recent days. We went as a caravan from branch to branch. I ultimately won and Clive came second. I do recall at one meeting at Kilcoy we had delivered our stock-standard speeches and Clive looked up when the shire chairman's wife stood up and said, 'Clive, what an absolutely wonderful speech that was, you'll be a real asset to the party,' and then she paused and said, 'When you grow up.'
There are odd quirks in politics and they always say the safer the seat the more marginal the member. I always had a practice, as the member for Fisher, to sign up people whom I had assisted in the hope that if they joined the party and if I were challenged in preselection then they would come along as loyal foot soldiers. One person, Mr Malcolm Brough, came into my office, we helped him and we signed him up into the then Liberal Party. He sought endorsement and I supported him for Longman, where he served for a period, and I suppose in a sense I am responsible for my own predicament.
I would like to relate a story about a recent breakfast I had at the Palmer resort at the invitation of Mr Clive Palmer. I think it was held in the Titanic room. It was a very large breakfast for two people and we had a very interesting conversation. I do recall that Mr Palmer mentioned to me at that time that about Easter last year Mr Brough, accompanied by the member for North Sydney, came to see Mr Palmer to ask him to fund James Ashby's legal fees with respect to the litigation, of which most people listening would be aware. The former Attorney-General, Ms Roxon, the member for Gellibrand, mentioned the possibility of an Ashby-gate royal commission. I have spoken to other senior ministers in the government. I do understand that matter is under active consideration and I would hope that the government moves to see the involvement of members of the opposition, in particular, in what has resulted in a situation where there was an attempt not only, shall we say, to remove the Speaker of the Australian parliament but also to bring down the government of this nation.
I cannot pretend to say that the events since April 2012 have been the best times in the lives of my wife or me or indeed my extended family. One of the unfortunate things, I suppose, is that the name 'Slipper' is so uncommon and so if you happen to have that as a surname people automatically assume an association. I would like to place on the record my thanks to my wife, Inge; to my two children, Nick and Alex; to Nick's wife, Ashlea, and Alex's partner, Ben; to Nick's three little boys, Riley, Henry and Charles; to my parents, Stanley and Joan, now well into their 80s, who were able to be at my first maiden speech but obviously are not here at the moment as they are unable to travel to Canberra. I would like to thank my brothers and their families. I would also like to thank my ex-wife, Lyn, who has always been a great political support to me. I would like to thank my current parents-in-law and former parents-in-law for their support over the years. I would also like to place on record my thanks to my staff over the years. When you have been in parliament for about 23 years, obviously you employ a lot of staff but in particular I would like to thank Tim Knapp, Michelle Ellis, Renee Bandes and Natalia Weaver, who are currently with me.
I would also like to thank my many friends in the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Liberal National Party over the years, my campaign directors and those people who had remained friends even after I departed the Liberal National Party. Of course, I have been serving in this parliament in three political parties—the National Party, the Liberal Party and then the Liberal National Party—and when I accepted the honour of being the Speaker of the Australian parliament I resigned to become an independent Speaker in the Westminster tradition. Some people have likened me to Billy Hughes. I am told that, at the 50th jubilee dinner of the Commonwealth parliament, a speaker paid tribute to him as a man who had sat in every parliament since Federation and every party too. Arthur Fadden interjected, 'Not the Country Party.' 'No,' said Hughes, who was still able to hear when he wanted, 'I had to draw the line somewhere.' So I have not been a member of the Labor Party; I had to draw the line somewhere.
A government member: There's still time!
Mr SLIPPER: The honourable member might well be correct. In fact, last night I thought I might go and announce to all of those people who seemed to be interested in what was happening in the Labor party room that I had joined to acquire an extra number, but my wife said 'over her dead body'.
During the almost quarter of a century I have been in the Australian parliament I have noticed many changes. When I was elected, I was one of the youngest members in the parliament and many members seemed to be my grandfather's age, rather than my father's age, and politics at that stage seemed to be a career which people entered when their children had got to a stage where they did not need both parents at home all of the time. I also recall the many courtesies that used to exist in the parliament, and I thank the Deputy Clerk, David Elder, for putting some of those together for me. I can remember that Bill Hayden wanted to tip a big bucket on me but he was not prepared to do so until I was in the chamber for this to occur, so he then sent the Labor whip to scour parliament House to find me. When he found me, Bill said to me, 'Peter, you'd better come in here. I've got a great big bucket to tip all over you.' Of course, it has been a tradition in this place that a member would not adversely mention another member unless that member had, in fact, contacted the other member to say, 'Hey, I'm going to say something bad about you,' to give the member the opportunity of indeed responding. There are so many traditions and courtesies which are now not observed and, I think, often because new members coming into the parliament are simply not aware that they ever existed.
There was the story of the young man elected to Westminster. He said, 'I really feel I've achieved something. I'm looking across the chamber at my enemies.' An older member said to him, 'Young man, those people over there are the Labor Party. They're your opponents. Your enemies are sitting all around you.' I suspect many of us would be able to relate to that sort of story. I recall Senator Boswell once told me that, if you want a friend in politics, buy a dog. Having said that, I must say that during my period in this place I have been enormously privileged to have friends right across the political divide. In fact, even after I resigned from the Liberal National Party to accept the very high office of Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, members of all political parties continued to engage and privately remained very good friends with me.
I think the committee system in this place works very well. Members of parliament are often able to put aside ideological differences, and I have been a member of many committees. I have been chairman of many committees. I have been chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I can recall, in fact, that in the parliament when Labor was elected the now Attorney-General became chairman and I was deputy chairman.
But the thing is that these committees always work well together. I can recall that when I was first elected I was on the House of Representatives Standing Committee—well, not first elected but when I was first elected as a Liberal; it gets confusing when you have been in so many parties!—the chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was Daryl Melham, the honourable member for Banks. The committee reference with regard to a bill had been passed on to that committee, and we came forward with a report that the government was not entirely happy with. I think Minister Duncan Kerr said he was never going to send that committee another reference. I said: 'Look, you guys control this committee. Why on earth do we send all of those reports off to Senate committees where you do not necessarily control them?' On that committee at the time was Michael Duffy, the former Attorney-General, and John Kerin, the former Minister for Primary Industries. Michael turned around to me with a big, cheesy grin and said, 'They know they can't tell us what to do.'
I was also on the Expenditure Committee when Leo McLeay, former Speaker and Deputy Speaker, was the chairman. I well recall the chook incident, when Mr Deputy Speaker Rocher was sitting in the chair late at night, probably half-dozing. He noticed on the ministerial benches a chook. He said, 'Order!' I think Hansard records 'an incident having occurred'. Then the chook fled, pursued by the then deputy serjeant, to the committee room, which was enjoying a very pleasant, multipartisan committee dinner. The chairman of the committee opened the door when the deputy serjeant knocked, having been sent there by former Mr Speaker Jenkins's father, who was then the Speaker. I am told that Mr McLeay said two words, neither of which anyone would consider to be parliamentary. The second word was 'off''!
Like all honourable members, it has been a great privilege to achieve many things for the electorate of Fisher. It is a beautiful area. The population is rapidly growing. What we need desperately are infrastructure, infrastructure and infrastructure. With question time not far away, time does not permit me to outline all of what I have been able to do as the member for Fisher, but I do want to say that the great satisfactory thing about being a member of this place is the way that we are able to help so many thousands of people access what are their rights. For us it is easy to contact a government department, and often we are able to fix up the problems that people themselves are not able to correct.
I was a whip for a while, and I want to mention that I support the British system whereby the chief whip on both sides ought to be a member of cabinet. Being a whip, of course, is a contradictory position. In one sense you are supposed to be the boss's eyes and ears; in another you are supposed to be the shop steward for the boys and girls. But, as far as a Prime Minister is concerned, in my view it is important that that person be in the cabinet.
I sought to be an independent Speaker in the Westminster tradition, beholden to neither side, and I was prepared to stand at the next election as an independent Speaker on the basis that occurs in the United Kingdom, where the Speaker is not opposed at the election by the major parties. I wanted, as all Speakers do, to be the best Speaker in Australia's history. I wanted to improve standards. I wanted to make this parliament a place that the Australian people could be proud of. I wanted to return to a more traditional sense of attire—with a modern touch. I wanted to make sure that at question time the executive was held to account. When you look at Prime Minister's question time in the United Kingdom, there is spontaneity and interactivity, whereas our parliament often protects mediocrity from both sides, and I think that is regrettable.
I brought in a number of changes: supplementary questions, cuts in time limits and renaming the Main Committee the Federation Chamber. We placed on the forward works list the construction of a permanent home for the Federation Chamber. I would like to thank the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Bernard Wright; the Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives, David Elder; and all the clerk assistants. I must say I had a failure: over many meetings we tried to get the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk to return to a more formal sense of attire. I had not lost that aspiration. I wanted to prove that I was a good Speaker first and I was going to revisit it, but circumstances did not permit that to occur.
I sought to be firm but fair, and I think the record will show what I sought to do at that particular time.
I would like to congratulate Prime Minister Gillard in her role as Prime Minister and new Prime Minister Rudd. I remember when Inge and I got married about seven years ago: I made the traditional groom's speech, looked to Peter Costello and said, 'The next Prime Minister is in the room.' I should have been looking at the next table, where Kevin and Therese were sitting. I was right, but I was looking in the wrong direction.
In my maiden speech as a Liberal in 1993 I said I intended to serve my electorate, my state and this parliament to the best of my ability, and I have endeavoured to do so. At the conclusion of both my maiden speeches—first as a National in 1985 and then as a Liberal in 1993—I adopted the words of Sir Winston Churchill, who said:
… this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
If I recontest the election and am successful in being returned to this place for the ninth time by the people of Fisher then, indeed, it will be a continuation. I thank the House.
The SPEAKER: I congratulate the member for Fisher for his preliminary valedictory and wish him well. It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:00): For the purposes of question time today, the Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions that are relevant to the portfolio of trade; he will answer questions relevant to the portfolio of broadband, as he normally does.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Australian Labor Party
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain to this House why the events of last night were necessary, and will he end the uncertainty that they have created by confirming the date for the election?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Let me go to the second part of his question first, which deals with the timing of the election. As the honourable gentleman knows, the timing of the election is governed by the Australian Constitution, and it is worth having a look at that document as it is the law that governs all Australians. Secondly, I would simply draw the Leader of the Opposition's attention to the fact that the practice of Prime Minister Keating, Prime Minister Hawke, Prime Minister Howard and Prime Minister Menzies was in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution to identify a date for an election. I will be no different to any of my predecessors.
The Leader of the Opposition again goes to questions of timing. I would draw his attention to facts which are material to the considerations of the government: (1) is the timing of the G20 summit in St Petersburg, scheduled for 6 and 7 September; (2) is the timing of the local government referendum; and (3), for the Leader of the Opposition, is the current coincidence of the election date with Yom Kippur. I will therefore go through these issues with my cabinet colleagues. The Leader of the Opposition can rest assured there is going to be an election, it will be held consistent with the Constitution and, if he has looked at the dates, there is not going to be a huge variation one way or the other—and it is for the Australian people to decide.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr RUDD: I look forward to contesting him in these elections on our alternative plans for Australia's future. Positive plans, not slogans.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister.
A government member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call; the parliamentary secretary does not.
A government member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: My friend from Tasmania! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: Why should the Australian people accept that their right to choose their Prime Minister has been usurped by faceless men for the second time in just three years?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:03): I thank the honourable member for his question. Leader of the Opposition: in the four years that I was leader of the Australian Labor Party, I faced John Howard, I faced Brendan Nelson, I faced someone by the name of Malcolm Turnbull, and most recently, as the honourable member for Wentworth will recall, I faced Tony Abbott. I had four leaders in four years. These are matters for internal party deliberations in his party and in ours. Let us get onto questions about the country's future.
Economy
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (14:04): Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why is the government optimistic about the future of our economy and what that means for all Australians?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:04): I thank the honourable member for her question. We in this country—if you were to step anywhere else in the world today, they would look at Australia and say, 'This is one of the best performing economies in the world.' However, if you stand in this chamber it is like we have entered an altered universe. And the altered universe suggested by the negative politics of those opposite is that this economy is somehow on its knees, which it is not. The basic economic data stands Australia proud. It is that not only have we come through the worst economic crisis since the Depression without going into recession, without bringing on mass unemployment, but we have also done so with low inflation levels, low interest rates for Australian working families and, on top of that, an avoidance of mass unemployment and employment levels which are the envy of the world. That is why this government and the nation at large should be confident.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr RUDD: When it comes to detracting from national economic confidence, it is important that all of us engage in a positive economic debate. And having observed from the nether regions for the last few years what has gone on in this debate, it has given me a bit of perspective. During that period of time what I have seen is that every single piece of good economic data advanced about the Australian economy has been ignored, belittled or distorted by those opposite. That is simply how it has gone.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr RUDD: I believe that what the Australian people are looking for is a positive vision for the nation's future.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sturt is warned!
Mr RUDD: What they want is positive politics, not negative politics. They want us to build the house up, not tear it down. They want a government that says: 'Here are the problems we face. Face them squarely on the basis of facts, on the basis of real argument and on the basis of practical policy solutions.'
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if the Australian people vote him in as the next Prime Minister of Australia—if they do—there is one core economic challenge facing us all, and that is this: the China resources boom is over. The China trade itself represents such a huge slice of the Australian national economy that we are looking at one huge adjustment for this nation's standard of living in the future unless we continue to act with appropriate policy responses. That means that on productivity we need to work hard to continue to boost our productivity. It means also the diversification of our economy. It means building up our manufacturing again. It means building up our agricultural sector and our processed food sector. This is the way forward, given the challenges we now face with a changed set of global economic circumstances. This government will put forward positive solutions as to how we handle those challenges, as we have done in the past. It is time for the old politics of negativity to be dead and buried.
Prime Minister
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement in the House today about the member for Lalor and also to his promise to her that:
I will not under any circumstances mount a challenge against your leadership.
I go one step further. If anyone turns on Julia in the 18 months ahead … Julia—you will find me in your corner against them.
If the member for Lalor could not trust the Prime Minister, why should the Australian people believe any promise he makes between now and the election?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:07): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were observing the political debate in this place yesterday, she would have heard in my statement to the press gallery, prior to the ballot that was held at 7 pm yesterday, my reasons for a change in a position which I outlined clearly—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr RUDD: responsibility for it. I would draw also the attention of the House to the multiple statements made by the then member for Warringah concerning the member for Wentworth when he was Leader of the Opposition. I do not think it is time for pots calling kettles black.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney is denying the Deputy Leader of the Opposition her supplementary question.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): Speaker, I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has just indicated he answered the question yesterday, but I remind him that this year he said:
When I say … to the people … across Australia that I would not challenge for the … leadership I believe in honouring my word. Others treat such commitments lightly. I do not.
Why didn't the Prime Minister keep his word to the member for Lalor? (Time expired)
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:09): I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. I refer her again to my statement yesterday. I have nothing further to add.
Infrastructure
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (14:09): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Minister, how is the government investing in infrastructure to build a stronger economy and a better future for our nation?
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (14:09): I thank the member for Page for her question. Earlier this month we announced preconstruction planning to get the Woolgoolga to Ballina section of the Pacific Highway shovel ready. It goes along with the work that is taking place on the Pacific Highway right up and down the north coast of New South Wales. I am proud today that I announced prior to question time the opening of the Bulahdelah bypass, just in time for the school holidays. We on this side of the House understand the importance of nation-building infrastructure for boosting productivity, for reducing travel times and, importantly, also for road safety.
I am reminded of a day I had with the then Prime Minister and the then Treasurer on the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway in Queensland. There I had a delegation, just prior to the budget when we were dealing with the global financial crisis here in Parliament House, and I met a gentleman by the name of Wayne Sachs. Wayne Sachs is the chief ambo in Gympie. What Wayne Sachs did was go through in a very human way the reality of what it is like to be an ambulance driver, whether it be in the area around the Bruce Highway, the Pacific Highway, the Midland Highway in Tasmania or any of our other major roads, where they have to see more tragedies in life than most of us. That is why I am very proud of our investment in the Pacific Highway and of our investment in the Bruce Highway. I was also proud to be with the then Prime Minister on the weekend at the Hume Highway opening, celebrating the completion of the duplication of the Hume Highway.
We have nation-building infrastructure projects right around the nation. We have committed $60 billion in the Nation Building Program but of course as well we have the National Broadband Network that is overcoming the tyranny of distance which Australia has been disadvantaged by, whether it be across our vast land or whether it be competing with our international neighbours. The fact is that this is a government that has a plan for nation building. We have a plan for infrastructure. That is why we have put in place the Infrastructure Australia process so we get proper advice, something that those on the opposite side of the House seem to have forgotten even exists. That is why we are investing not just in nation-building road projects but also, importantly, in urban rail projects and in freight rail.
Prime Minister
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that already the former Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, the Senate leader and Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, the Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation, the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have refused to serve in his government. If a third of the cabinet does not trust the Prime Minister, why should the Australian people?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:13): I thank the honourable member for his question. As I said yesterday, I honour the contributions which my ministerial colleagues have delivered to Australia, and they have been strong contributions. In this place we all make decisions about whether we wish to continue in political or ministerial life or not. These are personal decisions. Those on the other side of politics will fully recall their own experiences in their own political careers over time. What I am concerned about in this place is whether we are going to degenerate into the old politics of negativity with every question raised by those opposite or whether we have some chance of the politics of hope.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
Regional Australia
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (14:14): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in agreements reached at the start of the 43rd Parliament regional Australia made its way onto the map, with $9.9 billion for regional Australia, $1.8 billion for the regional Health and Hospitals Fund and $500 million for a regional round of an education infrastructure fund. For the 44th Parliament, as we go from the period of governing to electioneering, will you commit to matching that for regional Australia or even beating it?
Mrs Mirabella: Go on, double it!
The SPEAKER: The member for Indi does not have the call; the Prime Minister does.
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:14): I thank the honourable member for his question. I apologise to him for not having been present for his valedictory speech. He has served his constituents well in this place. He has delivered to his constituents that which he committed to them locally—his schools and his health services—and I recall well with the Deputy Prime Minister attending various ceremonies in the electorate concerned with the Pacific Highway. When you look at the plan which the government has in place for the completion of the dual carriageway of the Pacific Highway, one thing that we will be able to look back at with pride as a government and a parliament, and with you as the local member, is the number of lives that will be saved as a result of the necessary work on the Pacific Highway. That is bread-and-butter stuff for people who travel from Sydney to Brisbane along the Pacific.
The honourable member asked me to give a forward commitment for the next parliament in terms of particular allocations and, I think, the quantity of them. I am not in that business. However, regional Australia is etched deep into my heart. I grew up in a region. I grew up in a country town. I understand what it was like not to have a local doctor. I understand what it was like not to have a local dentist. I understand, from my experience as a kid growing up, what it was not to have secure housing, either. I say, therefore, to the honourable member that I am acutely conscious of those needs. That is why I would say, in response to the honourable member's question: regional Australia is writ large not just in my own heart but in the heart of this entire government.
That is because working people live right across Australia and not just in big cities, not just in regional cities but in small towns as well. They deserve the same infrastructure as the city folks get, and that is why, in part, we are delivering the National Broadband Network across regional Australia. No discriminatory rules, no leaving the bush out, no leaving regional Australia out, and the honourable member's constituents will be well served by that innovation as well. In conclusion, I thank the honourable member for his great service to the parliament. I wish him and his family all the very best for the future.
Economy
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (14:16): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the state of the economy? How is the government supporting the big transitions that are underway?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Treasurer) (14:17): I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She is a very good local member, including to my mum and dad. Our economy is strong and stable, and Australians have every reason to be very confident in our economic future. We have solid economic growth and since Labor came to power the Australian economy has grown by 14 per cent. Our economy has outperformed every other major advanced economies over this period. We have grown twice as fast as Canada, four times faster than the United States and nearly six times faster than Germany.
We have created jobs and we have low unemployment. We have created more than 950,000 jobs. That compares to 4.8 million jobs lost in the European Union and 2.4 million jobs lost in the United States over exactly the same period. Since Labor came to office, Australia has recorded faster jobs growth than every other major economy and we have delivered jobs growth at twice the rate of Canada and Germany and seven times the rate of the United Kingdom. Our debt is very low in international terms as well.
We need to recognise that Australia's economy is in transition. We are moving from the investment phase to the production phase in the mining industry. This has a very big impact on our economy. This is set against the continued growth of China. We see recent discussions and debates about Chinese economic growth and at what rates that growth will continue. But we know this: the Chinese economy is 50 per cent larger than it was just five years ago, so even lower economic growth in China will continue to have a strong impact on the Australian economy.
We need to work with industry and unions across the board to make sure that we are managing the transition. This morning I have spoken to Tony Shepherd of the Business Council of Australia, to Peter Anderson of ACCI, to Innes Willox of AIG and to Peter Strong of COSBOA and indicated that government will be working very closely with them as we move towards the transition phase of the economy. We will continue to put in place the major economic reforms, like the NBN, like infrastructure and like carbon pricing. We will continue to leave our doors open to business to make sure that we work together cooperatively as we manage this transition.
Rudd Government
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:14): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that the Australian people voted for his election in 2007 and ended up with the member for Lalor. They voted for the member for Lalor in 2010 and ended up with him. What guarantee can he provide that, if the Australian people re-elect a Labor government in 2013, they will not end up with someone else after the election?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:20): I thank the honourable member for his question. This is either the fourth or fifth question in question time, and not a single question on policy. I say to those opposite that once again we see on parade the old politics whereby we scream at each other, we do not work with each other, we try and scare people rather than make them think, and then on top of that we engage in politics which divides ordinary Australians rather than unites them.
The honourable member will be fully aware that the nation faces large challenges for the future. I find it remarkable that the honourable member should be so nervous about the Leader of the Opposition's prospects for the next election.
Mr Dutton: This routine's a bit tired, Kevin.
The SPEAKER: I am growing a bit tired of the member for Dickson's constant interjections.
DisabilityCare Australia
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Minister for Disability Reform. How is the government building a better future for people with a disability and their families and carers, particularly with the launch of DisabilityCare Australia next week?
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (14:21): I thank the member for Corangamite very much for that question. I thank him and the member for Corio for all the work they have done in supporting the launch of DisabilityCare Australia in Geelong. I have to say to the member for Corangamite and the member for Corio, as I have said many times, they have been fierce in their campaigning to get the headquarters for DisabilityCare Australia in Geelong and they have succeeded. It is a very exciting time for people with disability and their families and carers, as we see the start of DisabilityCare in Geelong, in the Barwon region, in the Hunter and, of course, for little children in South Australia and for young people in Tasmania from Monday. It is a very, very exciting time for people with disability.
As part of the launch we will see around 26,000 people with disability get the care and support that they need, the care and support that they have never had before. People will also be able to have choice and control over the care and support that they receive and, for the first time, will be part of developing their own personal care support plan. No longer will we see people with disability in these launch site areas having to wait, sometimes years and years, for a new wheelchair or wait at the end of a phone for a place in respite, which has had such a big impact on the lives of families and of carers.
We want to make sure that this time of waiting is over. There is a lot happening at the launch sites. People with disability are already ringing up making their appointments for next week. Providers of services to people with disability are making sure that they are registered. We have already had a lot of people go online with My Access Checker to see whether or not they will be eligible.
I particularly acknowledge the enormous campaign that has been run by so many people with disability and advocates over a very long period. The celebration that we will start on Monday is a celebration of their advocacy that will change the lives of people with disability and their carers forever.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:24): Just before I call the Leader of the Opposition I welcome to the floor of the chamber this afternoon the Ambassador from Chile, His Excellency Pedro Pablo Diaz. We welcome him to the House.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Prime Minister
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:24): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind him of his promises to take 'a very hard line' on people smuggling, to fix public hospitals or take them over, to run surpluses over the economic cycle and to reduce the cost of living through Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch, all of which promises he subsequently broke or dumped. As he was all talk and no action then, why should the Australian people believe that anything has changed?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:24): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and in his listing of the litany he skipped happily over a number of facts, including the state of our public hospital system and the funding proposals which we have put forward to fix that. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he went on the public record some years ago to say that he believed the perfect public policy response on his part was to take over the national hospital system of Australia from the states. What I instead proposed as Prime Minister, and what Prime Minister Gillard subsequently followed up on, was an arrangement with the states whereby we would provide 60 per cent of the funding of the public hospital system in order to provide durable public funding from the Commonwealth into the future. My successor as Prime Minister then undertook a further negotiation with the states which landed that at 50 per cent.
Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition a very simple thing? That is, under his period as health minister we saw the level of federal contributions to the public hospital system go down and down and down. Therefore, when the states around Australia said that there was a problem with the hospital system, it was necessary for the Commonwealth to step in and we did.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Before the Manager of Opposition Business begins his point of order I will again remind him of abuses of points or order. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
Mr Pyne: That would be fair enough, Speaker. My point of order is simply: how can the Prime Minister be relevant to the question when he is repeating a falsehood which has been cleared up in this House time and time again by the Leader of the Opposition?
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will leave the chamber under 94(a). The Manager of Opposition Business knows full well he cannot use points of order for debate.
The member for Sturt then left the chamber
Mr RUDD: And so, Speaker, I would simply say this: under the Leader of the Opposition, when he was minister for health, the relative real contribution by the Commonwealth to the public hospital system of Australia went down and down and down. That is a statistical fact which once again, if the Leader of the Opposition is happy to do so, I would be happy to debate with him one day at the National Press Club. That is: what are the relative funding and contributions by us as opposed to them for the public health of the Commonwealth? I would welcome a debate on public policy, welcome a debate on the future of the health system, welcome a debate on the future of the education system, welcome a debate on the future of the economy and on broadband. I would welcome a debate on national security, but all we get here is politics, politics, politics—the old politics of simply negative interjections and invective as opposed to building a constructive argument for one vision for Australia's future versus anything else he may choose to offer. We are on the side of a positive plan for Australia's future. I wish he would join the bus.
North Asia
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Defence. Minister, how is the government strengthening its defence ties in North Asia and will the minister update the House on the increasing strategic importance to Australia of North Asia?
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (14:28): I thank the member for her question and for her longstanding interest in national security matters. North Asia is, of course, extremely important to Australia. Some of our largest trading partners are there: China, Japan, the Republic of Korea. We also have some of our most important bilateral military-to-military and defence-to-defence relationships there and we have grown these relationships in recent years.
With China, for example, we are one of a very small number of countries that for the last 15 years has had a strategic dialogue with China at the level of Chief of the Defence Force and Secretary of the Defence Department. In the last two years we have engaged for the first time on mainland China with exercises with the PLA. We have also exchanged navy ship visits and engaged in live firing exercises. This is deeply important and is consistent with the strategic analysis you find in the 2013 white paper—that stability and security in North Asia is equally important for prosperity.
When it comes to Japan, we have substantially enhanced the defence-to-defence relationship and the strategic relationship that we have with Japan over the last decade. Now with Japan, for example, we do a 2+2 meeting in defence and foreign ministers' format. We also engage now at ministerial level with Japan at the trilateral level—Australia, Japan and the United States at both foreign ministerial and defence ministerial level. I conducted the second defence ministerial trilateral discussions at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore recently. I will be visiting Japan next week for what will be my eighth or ninth visit to Japan as a government minister, either foreign or defence, reflecting the strategic importance of our relationship with Japan.
As far as Korea is concerned, we have substantially grown our defence-to-defence and military-to-military engagement with the Republic of Korea. We have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Republic of Korea in the face of provocation from North Korea, the DPRK. Next week in Seoul, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr, and I will conduct a 2+2, a foreign minister and defence minister strategic meeting, giving our relationship with the Republic of Korea the same national security and strategic architecture as with the 2+2 with the United States, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and one other that currently escapes me. The 2+2 with Korea will be an important addition to the discussions that we have, consolidating and underpinning the importance of North Asia to our economic circumstances, our prosperity and our strategic— (Time expired)
Budget
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:31): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by the spending commitments and savings measures in the 2013 Labor government budget delivered just six weeks ago?
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister is warned!
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:31): I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. I know his deep concern for the state of our economy. We have discussed this many times privately and publicly over a long period. I will be discussing the general state of the budget and the state of the economy, including new international challenges—
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert is warned!
Mr RUDD: such as the China resources boom, when the new cabinet meets. I assume that will be early next week. Over the course of the weekend, I intend to obtain Treasury briefings to update myself on the current budgetary circumstances. That is the proper and methodical way to go through important considerations and that is what I intend to do. Also, I remind the member for North Sydney about how strong our economic fundamentals are. Therefore, when those opposite, as I have observed from a distant place over the last few years, engage in a constant attack on the levels of debt and the levels of budget deficit in this country, frankly, they have never answered this very simple question: if it is so bad, why do the world's three major credit ratings agencies give Australia a AAA rating? Member for North Sydney, answer that one for me.
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Higgins will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Higgins then left the chamber.
Mr RUDD: All three global ratings agencies—Fitch, Standard & Poor's and Moody's, which are not sub-branches of the Australian Labor Party and do not work for the cause of international socialism—have separately looked at our level of government debt and our level of budget deficit, and have judged it to be one of only eight countries in the world worthy of a AAA credit rating.
Again to the member for North Sydney, as he seeks to drill in on questions of the budget and budget integrity, how does he answer that proposition? I put it to him once during a television debate and all I heard was a bit of spluttering at the other end. We still have not had an answer to that simple proposition. It is not us saying it; it is the international credit agencies saying it. The reason for it is that it is true. The finances of this country are in first-class working order and he knows it.
Superannuation
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Herbert will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Herbert then left the chamber.
Mr SYMON: Minister, how are the government's policies protecting and growing the retirement savings of hardworking Australians?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:35): I thank the member for Deakin for his question. He and the whole of the Labor Party are interested in superannuation. Superannuation is a great Australian achievement and it is one that this side of politics can take some justifiable pride in. If the labour movement and the Labor Party had never championed universal compulsory superannuation we just would not have superannuation in this country. Superannuation delivers on the national pool of savings. Superannuation has delivered jobs in this country. Compulsory universal superannuation means that millions of Australians can look towards older age with a greater prospect of a decent retirement.
Superannuation, the great Labor idea, championed by Labor members of parliament, championed by the trade union movement, has meant that many Australians can work hard and have the prospect of a peaceful and dignified retirement. I can report that the national pool of savings in this country now is $1.6 trillion. That makes us the envy of many other countries. On 1 July this year, after 12 or 13 years of delay, superannuation is going to go up again and 8½ million Australians will be the beneficiaries of this government's work. I can also say that on 1 July the concessional caps for people over 60 will increase.
People over 60 who have the opportunity to put a bit more into the super will be able to do so. I can also report that after 1 July, 3½ million Australians who earn less than $37,000 will be getting rebates into their superannuation because it is the Labor government who abolished the 15 per cent tax on superannuation contributions. So there are a lot of good things about superannuation and there is a lot to be pleased about. It is because we have a Labor government with a plan and vision for superannuation.
The electorate know at the next election that there is one party which supports universal, compulsory superannuation. There is one party in Australia that supports increasing superannuation so that many can have a proper retirement. There is one party in Australia that supports the idea that low-paid workers should not have to pay a 15 per cent tax on the superannuation contributions. And lest anyone be confused about which party of Australian politics stands for universal, compulsory superannuation, it is the Labor Party.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kooyong is warned!
Carbon Pricing
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:37): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Australian people never had an opportunity to vote on the introduction of a carbon tax, will he commit to scrapping the carbon tax, including the planned five per cent increase on the carbon tax on Monday which he voted to reaffirm only yesterday?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:38): I would say to the honourable member, thanking him for his question regarding carbon pricing, that carbon pricing has been a policy of this government since I went to the election in 2007. It was also, I seem to remember, the policy of those opposite. I might have had a little memory lapse there but I seem to remember Mr Howard and various other ministers including the member for Wentworth standing up to defend the importance of carbon pricing through an emissions trading scheme. The honourable members opposite will know I have long been committed to a carbon price and I would say—
Mr Abbott: You have had a lot of memory lapses lately.
Mr RUDD: The Leader of the Opposition refers to the two occasions on which he, on behalf of the opposition, voted against an emissions trading scheme in this House despite the fact that they went to the previous election with exactly such a policy. I would argue in terms of some policy consistency that those opposite have a little bit to explain on this question. Carbon pricing is now becoming more and more of a global reality. Mention has been made in this place already of the actions being taken in the People's Republic of China and this is important in terms of the debate traditionally raised by those opposite about global competitiveness.
Murray-Darling Basin
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and how this will help build a brighter and more sustainable future for the basin?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (14:39): I thank the member for Makin for the question. He has been a very strong advocate for the Murray River in particular and for the Murray-Darling Basin. This government is very proud to have been a government that finally developed a plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. I remember at a community cabinet about five years ago the Prime Minister referring to the Murray as having been over-allocated to death. And yet we have a situation now where that same Murray-Darling Basin is being restored to health. I am very pleased as well that the question comes from the member for Makin who played a significant role in the Windsor committee. The Windsor committee was critical in making sure that we could get the support of this parliament on this issue.
It is also the case that there are two further pieces of information that I am very pleased to report to the House. Members will be aware that the final environmental outcomes we wanted to achieve were those commensurate with 3,200 gigalitres of water. I am pleased to report we have now passed the halfway mark on held water, with 1,638 gigalitres now held and able to be used to restore a system to health; where irrigation is done to help the environment not simply as a cost to the environment. It is also the case that we have had to make sure that we get the states working on the implementation part of the strategy. There are major projects set to happen up and down the basin as part of the implementation to make sure that we can maximise the environmental outcomes in some ways to find ways of bridging the gap through methods other than buyback as well.
I reported previously to the House that Victoria and the ACT and, obviously, our government have signed up to the intergovernmental agreement. I am pleased to advise the House that shortly before question time I received a phone call from the Premier of South Australia to say that South Australia is now also ready to sign on to the intergovernmental agreement. That means projects such as those at Chowilla to make sure that new regulators are put in place can happen, so that when irrigation and events for the environment happen there the water is held on the floodplain for a longer period, restoring a broken system to health, turning the corner on what had been a century of degradation. This is one of the proud reforms of this parliament and of this government, something that has been worked on for a long time. This is something which the member for Makin and the other South Australian members in particular, on this side and those across the parliament who worked on the Windsor committee, are able to say is an occasion where we have achieved something that had eluded our nation for a century.
Refugees
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:42): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind him of his broken promise to turn boats around, his decision to abolish the Pacific Solution and temporary protection visas, his asylum freeze that led to the riots in our detention centres, his decision to grant visas to those who blew up SIEV36 and his bungling of the Oceanic Viking incident. I ask: will the Prime Minister finally accept responsibility for the decisions that have led to illegal boat arrivals now running at over 3,000 every month?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:43): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. It is worth noting that in the period of the Howard government about 250 boats arrived on Australia's shores, of which the Howard government turned back four to Indonesia. Secondly, before honourable members get too excited about this let me just be quite direct about this matter. Prior to the 2007 election, I indicated—
Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—
The SPEAKER: What is the member for Cowper doing about observing the standing orders?
Mr RUDD: that we would seek to turn boats back. The Leader of the Opposition, if he is elected to be Prime Minister of Australia, will be advised by the officials, the security agencies and the Australian Navy that that is simply not possible under current circumstances. The reason for that is the Indonesian government has made it absolutely plain on the public record. I quote the Indonesian ambassador, who I understand has recently been a dinner companion for the member for Curtin. The Indonesian ambassador came out and said:
It's not possible for the Coalition to say that it has to go to Indonesia, back to Indonesia, because Indonesia is not the origin country of these people … no such collaboration will happen between Indonesia and Australia and bring back the people to Indonesia.
Last time I looked at diplomatic practice, ambassadors spoke on behalf of their countries. That is what the Indonesian ambassador said not years ago but on 31 May 2013. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if we are having a serious debate in this country about asylum seekers then it should be a debate about policies which work, as opposed to slogans which sound good. That is what is important here. Those opposite know for a fact that the Indonesian ambassador and, through him, the Indonesian government, will not cooperate with the policy which the Leader of the Opposition advocates.
In the period ahead I will be taking briefings from the national security community about what further can be done in this area. I say to the Leader of the Opposition—and this is a genuine invitation to him—that if he wants to engage in a real policy discussion and provide real policy solutions which could work on the high seas to deal with this problem confronting not just Australia but also countries around the world, I would urge him to take a briefing from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to take a briefing from ASIS and to take a briefing from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Department of Defence, the Australian Navy and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
This is absolutely how proper policy making works: facts are presented, alternative policies are produced and then you get on with the business of implementing a policy. It is quite different to simply stand up and use slogan and invective as if it were a substitute for policy. The easiest thing to do in this parliament is to stand up and use invective. The hardest thing to do in this parliament is to put forward a policy plan which works for the nation.
Mr Tehan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: And there is still time for me to throw the member for Wannon out of the chamber!
Mr Abbott: Speaker, would the Prime Minister undertake to table the Defence advice he referred to in his answer claiming that the Navy cannot do now what it has done before?
The SPEAKER: Was the Prime Minister reading from a document?
Mr RUDD: No, I was not, Speaker, because I have been briefed on these things many times before. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: read the transcript of the advice from the Chief of Navy in Senate estimates and, on top of that, do what any other responsible alternative Prime Minister does and take briefings from the intelligence community, from ASIS, from ASIO, from the Defence department and from the services. Or is he frightened of facing the facts?
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. There was no document.
Early Childhood Education and Care
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh—Second Deputy Speaker) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare. How is the government investing in high-quality child care and early childhood learning for families?
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide—Minister for Employment Participation and Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare) (14:47): I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. Members may be aware that earlier this week we saw a really appalling attack on our early childhood workforce when conservative commentator Judith Sloan, in a blog, labelled our childcare workers as 'dimwits' and said that they came from 'second-rate' universities, and then defended those comments on national television.
I want to make it very clear right here that we know that our workforce is made up of passionate, dedicated and qualified early childhood educators. They are early childhood educators to whom we owe much. We know that all of the research shows that these professionals are, in fact, shaping the lives of our children in their critical early years—and they must be recognised, they must be valued and they must be rewarded for that hard work that they do.
Earlier this week this House voted on the question: do we support more early childhood professionals earning more in return for the hard work that they do? I am incredibly proud that this side of the House voted a resounding yes to that question. We know that there are already many educators who are earning above award rates through their centres' enterprise agreements, and we support that. But what we want to do through the $300 million Early Years Quality Fund is ensure that we support more long-day care services to be able to pay their staff more and to keep child care affordable for the parents who are using that centre. This obviously benefits the staff but it also benefits those children—and it benefits the parents knowing that they are dropping their children off with staff members with whom they have ongoing relationships, trusts and bonds. This is another part of the positive plan that we have for modern Australia. It builds on the very real reforms that we have made in this sector and across the childcare industry.
We know that there are two camps when it comes to early childhood education and care. There are those who hold offensive, outdated views and label our workers as a babysitting service, and there is Labor—Labor who has tripled funding to the sector; Labor who has increased affordability of child care; Labor who has lifted the quality of care; and Labor who is making sure that more educators earn more money. We cannot risk turning back the clock on this sector. We are proud of the very real reforms that we have put in place for the benefit of children and parents right across Australia.
Mr Abbott: Speaker, on indulgence, could I just say that I support moves to improve the professionalism of our childcare sector; after all—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Home Insulation Program
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that he was responsible for the home insulation program that cost $1 billion to fix and was linked to four tragedies, more than 220 house fires, thousands of electrified roofs and thousands of job losses, and that he personally received at least 10 direct warnings. Will the Prime Minister apologise to all those affected and—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Flinders will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Mr Albanese: Speaker, there was more than a little bit of argument in that question. There were assertions and arguments put forward by the member. He should be asked to rephrase the question without the argument.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Flinders will restate the question without the argument.
Mr HUNT: Thank you very much, Speaker. I remind the Prime Minister that he was responsible for the home insulation program and that he personally received at least 10 direct warnings. Will the Prime Minister apologise to all those affected and release all letters of warning from then Minister Garrett?
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:52): I thank the honourable member for his question. Any industrial accident in Australia is one accident too many. Any industrial death in Australia is one death too many. Each year we have thousands of such deaths across Australia and those four that the honourable member referred to were a source of enormous grief to their families and loved ones. As for the insulation program, the honourable member will be familiar with the extensive debate which occurred in this chamber in the previous parliament.
Mr Abbott: Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister was asked to release all documents and correspondence between himself and the former minister and he should respond to that.
The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and is being relevant to the question.
Mr RUDD: Thank you very much, Speaker. I thank again the honourable member for his question because it deals with industrial deaths which came directly out of an Australian government program. There are industrial deaths which occur in this country, regrettably, every week. We are concerned about workers who die in their place of employment—and I know there are many members here who come from the trade union movement who have been engaged in this all their lives. I regret any industrial death which occurs in this country including the four that you have just referred to.
Health
Ms HALL (Shortland) (14:53): My question is the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister outline for the House how the government is building a strong and vibrant health system for the future? What milestones will be reached in the coming years to ensure better health outcomes for all Australians?
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (14:54): Thank you for that question. We are building a health system for the future and I am proud of what we have achieved in the last few years, firstly with Nicola Roxon, who did such a fine job with plain packaging and other aspects of the portfolio. More recently I have been proud of my own achievements. We are building a health system for the future.
We are committed to delivering the best possible health care to patients at an affordable price. We are the party of Medicare. In fact, we love Medicare so much we had to introduce it twice because they killed it the first time. We are the party of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that delivers affordable medicines for Australians. We have added $5 billion worth of new medicines since 2007 to the PBS. We are the party that believes universal health care is a basic right for all Australians.
What does that mean for the future? So far, since we came to government in 2007, there have been 11,000 more doctors in Australia. There are not the shortages that we had when the Leader of the Opposition was the health minister when he capped doctor training numbers. There are more hospital beds. We have promised 1,300 extra hospital beds with about 800 of those delivered so far. There is less waiting. We have injected billions of dollars into rebuilding our hospitals, new emergency departments and new beds for elective surgeries and we are seeing the results of that now. Under health reform we have guaranteed an extra $16.4 billion of funding between now and the end of the decade. We have put $3.4 billion into rebuilding our public hospitals to prepare them to move to activity based funding. This huge reform means hospitals will be funded more when they treat more patients. We are encouraging them to look after more people, do more elective surgery, deliver more babies, replace more hips.
On 1 January, Grow Up Smiling will start with $2.7 billion to ensure that for Australian children it will be as easy to go to the dentist as it now is to see a GP—3.4 million Australian children living in family tax benefit part A families will find it as easy to go to the dentist as it now is to go to the GP. They will grow up with better teeth. On 1 July we are also providing the next lot of funding for public dental services, another $1.3 billion to build on the hundreds of millions that we have spent on reducing public dental waiting lists already.
We are going to continue to invest in improving bulk-billing rates that hit historic lows under the Leader of the Opposition when he was the health minister. We have built a stronger health system and will continue to build a stronger health system because we believe that all Australians deserve a decent health system.
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (14:57): The stipulated number of questions have been asked. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Malcolm, Mr Terry
The SPEAKER (14:57): Just before everybody leaves the chamber, I have a short statement. I inform the House today that it is the last question time for Terry Malcolm from ABC's parliamentary broadcasting team. Most of us do not know Terry's face. Just about all of us know Terry's voice. After 37 years in the booth, Terry is about to retire. On behalf of members past and present, I thank Terry for his professionalism and dedication to bringing the proceedings of this House to the public for so many years. Thousands of listeners across the country have relied on Terry's explanations about what is happening in the chamber as we go about our business. Terry, your voice and your calm manner will be greatly missed. I am sure that all members will join me in thanking you for your services and wishing you well in your retirement.
Honourable members: Hear, hear.
COMMITTEES
Government Response
The SPEAKER (14:58): For the information of honourable members I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to the reports of House of Representatives and joint committee incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 28 November 2012, the date of the last of the schedules, and 26 June 2013. Copies of the schedules are being made available to honourable members and will be incorporated into Hansard.
The schedule read as follows—
Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Affairs (House, Standing)
Everybody's Business: Remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Stores
The government response is being considered.
Our land, our languages: Language learning in Indigenous communities
The government response was tabled on 6 June 2013.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (House, Standing)
Seeing the forest through the trees: inquiry into the future of the Australian Forestry Industry
The government response was tabled on 19 June 2013.
Netting the benefits: Inquiry into the role of science for the future of fisheries and aquaculture
The government response is being considered.
Australia's Immigration Detention Network (Joint, Select)
Final Report
The government response was tabled on 29 November 2012.
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (House, Standing)
Community Television: Options for digital broadcasting
The government response is being considered.
Report: Tuning in to community broadcasting
The government response is being considered.
Corporations and Financial Services (Joint, Statutory)
Better shareholders - better company - Shareholder engagement and participation in Australia
The government does not intend to respond to the report because of the time elapsed since the report was tabled.
Aspects of agribusiness managed investment schemes
The government response is being considered.
Access for small and medium business to finance
The government response is being considered.
Report on the 2010-11 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act
The government response is being considered.
Collapse of Trio Capital—Final Report
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 26 April 2013 and tabled in the House of Representatives on 14 May 2013.
Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
There are no recommendations contained in the report.
Economics (House, Standing)
Inquiry into raising the productivity growth rate in the Australian economy
The government response is being considered.
Inquiry into Indigenous economic development in Queensland and review of the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010
The government response is being considered.
Report on the Exposure draft of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
Education and Training (House, Standing)
Adolescent Overload? Report of the inquiry into combining school and work: supporting successful youth transitions
The government response is being considered.
Education and Employment (House, Standing)
Work wanted: Mental health and workforce participation
The government response was tabled on 5 February 2013.
Workplace Bullying: We just want it to stop
The government response was tabled on 12 February 2013.
Electoral Matters (Joint Standing)
Inquiry into the implications of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Automatic Enrolment) Act 2009 (NSW) for the conduct of Commonwealth elections
The government response is being considered.
Report on the conduct of the 2010 Federal Election and matters related thereto
The government response is being considered
Report on funding of political parties and election campaigns
The government response is being considered.
Review of the AEC analysis of the FWA report on the HSU
The government response is being considered.
Employment and Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation (House, Standing)
Making it work: Inquiry into independent contracting and labour hire arrangements
The government response is being considered.
Employment a nd Workplace Relations (House, Standing)
Making it Fair: pay equity and associated issues related to increasing female participation in the workforce
The government response was tabled on 3 June 2013.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint, Standing)
Inquiry into Australia's trade and investment relations with Asia, the Pacific and Latin America
The government response was presented out of sitting on 20 December 2012 and tabled on 5 February 2013.
More than just talk: Australia's human rights dialogues with China and Vietnam
The government response was tabled on 20 June 2013.
Review of the Defence annual report 2010–2011
The government response was tabled on 14 February 2013.
Australia's overseas representations—Punching below our weight?
The government response was tabled on 3 June 2013.
Gambling Reform (Joint, Standing)
The prevention and treatment of problem gambling
The government response was presented out of sitting on 9 May 2013 and tabled on 14 May 2013.
Health and Ageing (House, Standing)
Weighing it up: Obesity in Australia
The government response was tabled 14 May 2013.
Regional health issues jointly affecting Australia and the South Pacific: Delegation Report
The government response is being considered.
Before it's too late: Report on early intervention programs aimed at preventing youth suicide
The government response is being considered.
Lost in the labyrinth: Report on the inquiry into registration processes and support for overseas trained doctors
The government response is being considered.
Discussion paper on the late effects of polio-post-polio syndrome
The government response is being considered.
Industry, Science and Innovation (House, Standing)
Seasonal forecasting in Australia
The government response was tabled on 24 June 2013.
Infrastructure and Communications (House, Standing)
Finding the right balance: Cabin crew ratios on Australian aircraft
The government response is being considered.
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (House, Standing)
Rebuilding Australia's coastal shipping industry: Inquiry into coastal shipping policy and regulation
The government responded with the suite of shipping reform laws passed by the Parliament on 18 June 2012.
Law Enforcement (Joint)
Inquiry into Commonwealth unexplained wealth legislation and arrangements—Report March 2012
The government response was presented out of sitting on 21 February 2013 and tabled on 12 March 2013.
Migration (Joint, Standing)
Immigration detention in Australia: A new beginning—Criteria for release from detention
The government response is being considered.
Immigration detention in Australia—Community-based alternatives to detention
The government response is being considered.
Immigration detention in Australia: Facilities, services and transparency
The government response is being considered.
National Capital and External Territories (Joint, Standing)
Etched in stone? Inquiry into the administration of the National Memorials Ordinance 1928
The government response is being considered.
Petitions (House, Standing)
Electronic Petitioning to the House of Representatives
The government response is being considered.
Procedure (House, Standing)
Motion to suspend standing orders and condemn a Member: Report on events of 10 October 2006
The government response was tabled on 4 June 2013.
Building a modern committee system: An inquiry into the effectiveness of the House Committee system
The government response is being considered.
Monitoring and review of procedural changes implemented in the 43rd Parliament: 4th Report
The government response is being considered.
Public Accounts and Audit (Joint, Statutory)
Report 423: Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos 39 (2009-10) to 15 (2010-11)
The government response is being considered.
Report 430: Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos 47 (2010-11) to 9 (2011-12) and reports Nos 10 to 23 (2011-12)
The government response was given by Executive Minute.
Report 431: Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos 24 to 32 (2011-12)
The government response was given by Executive Minute.
Report 434: Annual public hearing with the Commission of Taxation 2012
The government response is being considered.
Public Works (Joint Standing)
Public works on Christmas Island
The government response is being considered.
Referrals made May to September 2012
The expediency motion for the approval of works has been agreed by the Parliament.
Regional Australia (House, Standing)
Report into certain matters relating to the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan
The government response was tabled on 3 June 2013.
Treaties (Joint Standing)
Report 130—Treaty tabled on 14 August 2012
The government response is being considered.
Report 131—Treaties tabled on 21 August, 11 and 18 September 2012
The government response was tabled on 16 May 2013.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (14:58): I move:
That the House take note of documents numbered 1, 3 and 7.
Debate adjourned.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
North Asia
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (14:59): Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer.
The SPEAKER: The minister may proceed.
Mr STEPHEN SMITH: For the sake of the record, the 2+2 I forgot in question time today was Indonesia.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Valedictory
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (14:59): Earlier today I had a discussion with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was gracious enough to indicate to me that he would like me to continue to serve in the cabinet as Minister for Defence. I enthusiastically accepted that but advised the Prime Minister that I am not proposing to recontest the seat of Perth at the forthcoming election. Accordingly, I advised the Deputy Prime Minister, the national secretary of the Australian Labor Party and the state secretary of the Australian Labor Party of that before question time.
This speech is in the nature of an indulgence and valedictory speech, but I will do my best to keep it closer to an indulgence than a valedictory. I have had the great honour of being the member for Perth since 1993. Can I, firstly, thank the people of Perth for continuing to place their confidence and trust in me.
If you were to ask me: 'Stephen, what is the single, central reason why you are not proposing to recontest?' I would say, 'Twenty years is a long time for any member of parliament and six years is a long time on the executive.' But this may be something that only Western Australians can understand: I cannot, in all good conscience, say to the people of Perth that I can continue—win, lose or draw at the next election—for another three years. Twenty years I can do; 23 years I can't. So I have made that decision. I have been thinking about this matter for some considerable time, but other events have not allowed me to have the clarity of thought which I have had in the last couple of days, as other members have.
I thank the House for the way in which it has dealt with me over the years—sometimes harshly, most times benevolently. Can I also say that I am very grateful to two prime ministers: Prime Minister Rudd and former Prime Minister Gillard, for the opportunity that they have given me to serve in the cabinet and on the National Security Committee of Cabinet, both as foreign minister and as defence minister.
For a long period of time—too long—I was a shadow minister, but my last portfolio was as shadow minister for education in 2006-07. I was expecting to be the Minister for Education. I am probably the only Minister for Foreign Affairs, who, for the first three days, was disappointed he was not Minister for Education. But I became accustomed to that. When I was asked which other portfolio I might like to serve in I chose defence because it kept me in the national security arena, something I had not, frankly, focused on as a opposition shadow minister. I have had the good fortune of being involved in protecting, securing and maintaining the national security interests of the Commonwealth for nearly six years.
I do not want to give a lengthy list, but I think the Labor government has done some good things in those times: the work that we did to encourage the United States to join the East Asia Summit; the work we did to encourage India to enhance its relationship with Australia; and the work we did with Africa to enhance both our strategic and economic relationships. As Minister for Defence, despite some critiques to the contrary, I am very pleased with the strategic elegance of the 2013 Defence White Paper. Can I say I am very proud of what I have sought to do, together with the leadership of the Defence Force, with regard to Defence culture and treatment of women.
I came to this place following upon some long years as a Labor Party supporter and activist. I joined the party in 1975. I became the principal private secretary to the Attorney-General of Western Australia, Joe Berinson, in 1983. He was one of my predecessors as the member for Perth. I then became state secretary of the Western Australian branch of the Labor Party. Because I had to wait for my good mate Ric Charlesworth, known as Grumpy to his two mates—the only two he has; he has heard that before—to decide that he wanted to do other things before I could seek to become the member for Perth, I became the WA state secretary, which was a very good training ground for serious public and political activity.
Paul Keating asked me to come and serve on his staff, which I did firstly when he was Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister and then when he was Prime Minister. Paul is a one-off. So that collective experience came to me as the member for Perth when I was elected in 1993. Ric Charlesworth handed over the seat to me in good order. He was my campaign director. I let the local Liberal Party in Perth know that I will be the campaign director for the re-election of the Labor Party in Perth and you should fear that more than you fear me as a candidate!
Can I thank some of my colleagues. It is not possible to mention all of the people I want to thank. In a long period in the parliament, particularly when, regrettably, two-thirds has been in opposition and only one-third has been in government, there are many issues you go through where relationships are forged through fire. I just want to mention a couple, not necessarily in any order. I am great mates with Albo. I said to him the other day, 'Albo, if you become Deputy Prime Minister, I'll be able to call you both leader and deputy at the same time and be right,' because, for six years, I have been Albo's deputy as Deputy Leader of the House. We have known each other for a long time, he from the Left, I from the Right. But we are mainstream Labor and it has been one of the great joys of my life to be not just a colleague of Albo's but a close personal friend and to work with him. I think he as Leader of the House in this parliament has been a hero of the Labor movement.
Jenny Mack. I sit next to Jenny Macklin in the ERC and I have always followed, with Jenny, my mother's adage that there is always someone worse off than you and your job in life is to give someone a helping hand. I have never let her down when it comes to an ERC submission about those people who do need a helping hand. I cannot look at her; she will make me cry. That relationship was also forged through a long period in opposition.
My mate Stephen Conroy in the Senate is misunderstood by many. Conroy is the bravest member of the parliament that I know. He has raw courage, raw integrity and raw decency and will not deviate from what he believes in principle because it might have adverse consequences for himself.
Finally in this round—there are others but I will get to the 17-minute mark if I am not careful—is my great friend the member for Lilley. We became state secretaries together; we came into this House together; we became ministers together. I always thought that Wayne was the person, when we were in opposition and in government, who most understood the need for a Labor Party and a Labor government to represent people who were of low or middle incomes who looked to the Labor Party and the trade union movement as the institutions in Australian society which had an obligation to look after them. No-one, in my view, crystallised that understanding or that commitment better than Wayne. I thought in the course of our time in opposition that, both as family and community services shadow and as shadow Treasurer, he did more than any other shadow minister to put us in a position to win when we did in 2007 through his policy and political attack upon the Howard government and its ministers.
There are a number of other people who have come into this place in later years for whom I have the highest regard and warm affection. I am proposing to volunteer my gratuitous private advice to them as they continue in the parliament and in senior positions in the party.
Because I am remaining as defence minister for a period, I will have the opportunity to formally thank those people I have worked with in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and in the Australian Defence Force and the Defence organisation. I have had the great privilege of representing our country overseas. I have always tried to do that in an appropriate and civilised and dignified manner. I have always been impressed with the quality of the senior civil servants and uniformed officials we have in those two departments. It has been a great honour to work with them. As Minister for Defence with two CDFs—Angus Houston and David Hurley—I have as an individual defence minister seen on my watch more deaths than any other Australian defence minister since Vietnam. It is at those moments when you look into the Chief's eyes you see the integrity, the decency, the commitment of those two individuals. They are both Australians of whom we can be proud.
I will make other remarks about the DFAT and Defence officials that I have worked with, but can I say now that I have had the opportunity of working closely with quality, first-class Australian public servants: Michael L'Estrange, Dennis Richardson, both at Defence and DFAT, and Gillian Bird, who acted as Secretary of DFAT, together with Ian Watt and Duncan Lewis in Defence. Can I say of Dennis Richardson that, when the Hawke-Keating challenge was on, he and I were the ones behind the scenes who ensured that life went on in a civilised way for those people who were not combatants. Dennis is one of the all-time great Australian civil servants; any and every Australian government is well served by his frank and fearless advice—which it is—in the finest and truest traditions.
Can I thank the House. Can I thank the clerks. Can I thank the attendants and the cleaners. When I turned up for my first day of work on a Monday morning when I was on Paul's staff, I got in at about half past seven, quarter to eight, and the cleaners were there. They said: 'Oh, no, darling, it's much too early for them! You'll have to wait. Go down to Aussie's and have a cup of coffee.' I have always been well treated by the cleaners in the early hours of the morning and the late hours of the night as I wander through, having done my paperwork.
Because this is a retirement from the parliament, come the election, can I focus on a couple of things so far as federal Perth is concerned. I will not mention all of my electorate staff but members know how valuable and essential they are to us. I just want to mention one. Anne Keane has been on my staff for all of my time as the member for Perth. She was also on Ric Charlesworth's staff for almost all of Ric's time as the member for Perth. He had 10 years, I have had 20. Having Ric for 10 years is probably the equivalent of having me for 20! But I make this point: I am the longest serving Labor federal member for Perth but Anne is the person who, since Federation, has made the longest continuous contribution for federal Labor in federal Perth. She has been a heroine. I have been blessed, for her loyalty and for the work that she has done for me.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Mr STEPHEN SMITH: If I think of Jenny Macklin I will dissemble. Let me conclude by saying that when I came into this place back in 1993, Jane and Hugo were in the house and Maddie was on the way. Hugo is now 21. Maddie is now 19—or, as I often say because they are a pigeon pair, Hugo is 21 going on 19 and Maddie is 19 going on 21. Jane has been long-suffering. Public life, of its very nature, as a participant is inherently selfish so far as our families are concerned, so the burden falls on the spouse and the children. In one sense I have been blessed because my children have never known anything else, so for them it is standard fare. But for Jane, as it is for other spouses, from time to time it has had its moments. After 20 years, if it is a choice between spending three more years here to make it 23 or the next few years doing whatever comes along in Perth then, as those people whom I have taken to it would know—Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton and a few others—I very much enjoy and love living in Perth. I am very much looking forward to doing that and continuing to help federal Labor in whatever capacity, not just in Perth but in Western Australian generally. I thank the House.
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (15:13): On indulgence: I think all members of this place would agree that what we have just heard has been an elegant and humane conclusion for an extraordinary public career in the Australian parliament and we are going to be poorer for your absence, as an institution and not just as an Australian Labor Party. Smithy is one of the few folks to have served since the Second World War as both defence and foreign minister; there are not many of them, and it actually says something about the professionalism of the minister that they can extend themselves across these two critical institutions of state which lie at the heart of our national security arrangements.
What do you say about Smithy? He is disciplined, organised and methodical, and the best joke in the cabinet, which I will now publicly reveal, is about when you really want to get under his skin. He has this impeccably organised set of papers which are basically organised like this, as I show you, and they are not a centimetre out of place. So when he gets up and goes out of the room to get a sandwich or a drink, the thing you do is just twist them slightly and when he comes back his entire visual universe is turned on its head. True?
Government members: True!
Mr RUDD: That's right. So, Smithy, we love you for that because you are even more anally retentive than I am.
The other thing I would say about Smithy's career is we know him to be disciplined, highly professional, unflappable. Prior to when the good people of Australia voted us in, in 2007, we were having a discussion about portfolios and I said to him, 'Mate, how about you lend yourself to the Foreign Affairs portfolio?' That is the first time I have seen the universally unflappable Stephen Smith look like a stunned mullet. Smithy, it was the first occasion when you looked as if you did not see it coming.
Can I say, having served Australia as a foreign minister myself, he has served Australia well. What he has just referred to with our critical relationships in the region is absolutely true. Australia's diplomatic relationships in East, South-East and South Asia are in their best state ever, and that is a consequence of the diplomacy of ministers like Stephen Smith, who has made a singular contribution. Let me give you one example; he referred to it briefly. One of the major foreign policy achievements in the last several years has been the invitation from ASEAN to the United States to become a full member of the East-Asian Summit and to persuade our dear American friends to accept that invitation once it had been extended—talk about a double treat! The person who did a large amount of the diplomatic legwork to make that happen was one Stephen Smith. It is important because it is the first time the United States is a full member of a regional institution with an open political, security and economic agenda.
I commend also his role as Minister for Defence. He has made an extraordinary contribution. Around the world—this is when I run into foreign ministers and when I have run into others engaged in the international policy debate—he is a figure who is universally respected. He is calm, he is utterly professional and he honours his word.
As for the Labor Party, he outlined his career in the Labor Party going back to 1975, almost the Mesolithic period for some of us who have been in this business of politics. That is an extraordinarily long service to the party, the movement, and the values which we on this side of the House serve. He has been a Labor warrior first-class, and the party deserves to extend to him a great vote of thanks.
I would say this finally to all members who come to this place from Western Australia, and I think of the member for Curtin—and, on our side of the House, the member for Brand and the member for Fremantle—and the senators: this is an extraordinary sentence which you all endure. I can only say that your commitment to the nation, whichever side of the political divide we fall on, is doubly great because you spend so much of your lives on that plane. So, Smithy, I understand full well how much your family have finally put their foot down, and I wish you and your family all the best on behalf of the Australian government.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:18): On indulgence, can I say very briefly to my Deputy Leader of the House, my extraordinarily lifelong friend and comrade: Stephen, you have shown today what an adornment to the parliament you have been since the day you walked on to the floor of this chamber. You are a class act, and I wish you, Jane and all of your family all the best for the future.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:19): On indulgence, on behalf of the coalition I extend our best wishes to the retiring member for Perth. May I say, on behalf of the coalition, that the Labor Party has lost today another significant son. It seems that there is something of a changing of the guard taking place amongst members opposite and I suspect that the Labor Party may be the poorer for it.
As all of us know, in this particular place there are opponents and there are opponents. I can say that the member for Perth has always been an honourable opponent: if he told you something you knew it was true and if you told him something you knew he would not misuse it. Regrettably, that cannot always be said for people in this place.
The heaviest thing this parliament does is commit our armed forces to combat, and there has been much combat in the tenure of the member for Perth as Minister for Defence. The hardest thing for anyone to deal with is casualties and, as the member for Perth has outlined to the House, he has had too many casualties to deal with, he has had too many bitter words, bitter experiences, to break to good people who did not deserve it. It is a very heavy burden to bear and the member for Perth, as minister, has discharged his responsibilities with decency and humanity, and we thank him for it. This parliament in which we serve is a vocation. It is not a career and it is not a job; it is a vocation, and the member for Perth has been an adornment to it.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Parliamentary Precinct
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (15:21): Speaker, this will be a bit of an anticlimax, but I should adjust my cuffs and straighten my tie—Stephen, there is nothing I can do with my hair, but anyway—and raise this because I think that it is an important development in the way in which this place operates. So by way of questions to you under standing order 103: does the Speaker agree that the efforts of officers from the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services at short notice and which enabled members and senators to carry out their business last night unhindered, whilst at the same time allowing members of the press gallery to appropriately give public coverage to the historic events, were exemplary? Will the Speaker convey, both to departmental officials and to the executive of the gallery, the gratitude of the House for the development of protocols to handle such events both cooperatively and to the satisfaction of the interests of all concerned?
The SPEAKER (15:22): I certainly will. I will concur with the member for Scullin in my appreciation of all the departmental staff and the members of the press gallery for the way the situation yesterday was handled. There were some outbreaks earlier in the day; but, when the new rules were reinforced, they were adhered to. I wish to thank everyone and the member for Scullin for bringing it to our attention.
However, there have been some unwarranted instances in the last 24 hours. When members of the parliament and their staff breach the rules that the members of the press are being asked to adhere to, that is a grave violation. People taking photographs in any section of the building nowadays where we have said they are not to without the permission of the individual will no longer be tolerated. This is a workplace for everybody, and people should remember and respect that.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (15:23): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for North Sydney claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr HOCKEY: I do.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr HOCKEY: In his preliminary valedictory speech the member for Fisher said:
I do recall that Mr Palmer mentioned to me at that time that about Easter last year Mr Brough, accompanied by the member for North Sydney, came to see Mr Palmer to ask him to fund James Ashby's legal fees with respect to the litigation that most people listening would be aware of.
That is patently untrue. I have never met Mr Ashby. I did not know of Mr Ashby. The matter was never raised over a cup of coffee that I had with Mr Palmer, which has been widely reported. The matter was never raised in relation to that entire affair. I note that Mr Palmer's spokesman has just said, 'Clive has denied this about a thousand times.' I ask that the member for Fisher correct the record.
Dr STONE (Murray) (15:24): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Murray claim to have been misrepresented?
Dr STONE: Most grievously.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Dr STONE: I was a member of the Tony Windsor chaired Murray-Darling Basin inquiry. During question time the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities said that we, as members of that committee, had been in total agreement with his actions since then and that the recommendations of that committee had been fully taken up. That is not the case, in particular in relation to a triple-bottom-line approach or a strategic water buyback recommendation which stated that there should not be generic buyback of water at all, because it destroys irrigated agriculture. This is a most serious allegation for those of us who worked hard on that committee, and we do ask the government to revisit the recommendations of that inquiry because it is a most significant inquiry for the future of agribusiness in the Basin.
COMMITTEES
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee
Report
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand) (15:25): As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 21 March to 26 June 2013 and present the report from the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests concerning an application from Mr Brian McCarty for the publication of a response to a reference made in the House of Representatives.
BILLS
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:27): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In the interest of the parliament's time constraints—and I thank the Leader of the Opposition—I seek leave to table the second reading speech to this bill.
Leave granted.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (15:28): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) (15:29): On indulgence, the honourable member for North Sydney asked me to clarify the remarks that I had made during my precautionary valedictory speech. I was not present at the meeting between Mr Brough, Mr Hockey and Mr Palmer. All I said in my speech was that over breakfast Mr Palmer mentioned—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The member for Fisher is seeking my indulgence but is now going to an argument rather than saying where he was misrepresented.
Mr SLIPPER: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I was saying was Mr Palmer said that Mr—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the member for Fisher will resume his seat.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) (15:30): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have resumed my seat, as you have asked. I have now stood to my feet and I am seeking leave to make a personal explanation in accordance with the standing orders.
Leave granted.
Mr SLIPPER: Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for North Sydney asked me to withdraw. What I did was simply to relate a conversation that I had had with Mr Palmer. Mr Palmer knocked Mr Brough back as far as the funding request for James Ashby—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fisher—
Mr SLIPPER: and Mr Palmer in fact said he had a high regard for me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fisher—
Mr SLIPPER: So there is nothing to withdraw because I was simply repeating a conversation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fisher will resume his seat!
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Labor Party Leadership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (15:31): The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The urgent need for a clear and united plan to deliver a stronger Australia and a better future.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:31): Momentous events have taken place. This parliament, over the last 24 hours, has witnessed some dramatic events. A Prime Minister has been dragged down for the second time in three years, and one-third of the cabinet has resigned. I say that the people of Australia and this parliament deserve a full explanation as to why that was deemed necessary by the current Prime Minister. But what we have had is not a word, not a skerrick of the explanation that the people of Australia are owed. The now Prime Minister has given no interviews, he has held no press conference and he answered no questions whatsoever on this subject in the parliament in question time today. And the man who has been plotting for three years, for three long years, to bring down his predecessor as prime minister is now saying: 'Nothing to see here, nothing to see here. Move on, move on. Nothing to see.' Like St Francis of Assisi, the Prime Minister is innocent of this blood on his hands. Like Pontius Pilate, the Prime Minister is washing the blood off his hands.
Well, it is just not good enough. If the economy is as good as the Prime Minister claimed in question time today, why do we no longer have the Treasurer who was managing it? If the government and the country is in as good shape as the Prime Minister claimed in question time today, why was it absolutely necessary to drag down the Prime Minister who has led the government for three years and three days? The Prime Minister owes the country and he owes the parliament an explanation.
He obviously has not forgotten the events of three years and three days ago. The people have not forgotten the intervening period. We know how this government has struggled from division to disaster, and the Prime Minister needs to explain why it is that he felt it necessary to drag down this country's first female prime minister. Why was it necessary to do this? He owes us an answer, and I trust, I so trust, that he will come into this parliament and respond to the MPI today and give us the answers that this parliament and the people of Australia deserve. And if he does not, I trust that he will not be able to go anywhere in this country without the media subjecting him to the questioning that he deserves to face on this subject.
The truth is that after the events of last night, this Prime Minister's hands are just as dirty as those of his predecessor—that is the truth—but at least his predecessor had the decency, the honour and the courage to offer an explanation. It was not a very good explanation. She said back then, on 24 June, that a good government had lost its way. We know it was not true. We know it was a bad government that lost its way, because she subsequently told us. Why won't this Prime Minister at least have the honour that his predecessor had and offer an explanation to the Australian people? It is not too much to ask. Twenty-four hours ago we had one Prime Minister, now we have a different Prime Minister. Why has this been done? He owes us an explanation.
And while he is going about it, on behalf of the Australian people I pose two questions to the incoming Prime Minister. First, and most importantly, when will the election be?
A government member interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: Yes, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. The previous Prime Minister told us the date. And given that she had the courage and the decency to tell us the date, why won't her successor have equal courage and decency and tell us what the date is? End the uncertainty that the events of last night have created, and at the very least confirm that date previously mentioned.
While he is answering some questions, he ought to also tell us what is going to happen to the carbon tax increase on Monday. These are the material facts which the Prime Minister ought to come clean with the Australian people about: what is the date of the election and what is happening with the increase in the carbon tax due next Monday? But there is a larger question which he ought to address: how is Rudd recycled going to be different from Rudd previously rejected by his colleagues? I know the Prime Minister will say, 'There's the Leader of the Opposition being negative again.' These are legitimate questions. He wants the people to have amnesia about the past, but we should not accede to that self-serving request.
The person who said before the 2007 election that the reckless spending must stop then presided over the greatest spendathon in Australia's history. The Prime Minister who said he would turn the boats around did not turn a single boat around and instead began the greatest border protection disaster in Australia's history. The Prime Minister who said that climate change was not just important, was not just one issue, but was in fact the gravest economic, social, political and moral challenge of our generation then dumped the emissions trading scheme policy which he had previously said was so vital. The Prime Minister who originally said he would fix the National Broadband Network for $4.7 billion then said: 'No, that's not going to work; we've got to spend $44 billion on it'—and now it seems it is going to cost $96 billion, at least $60 billion more than it should. The Prime Minister who said he was going to fix fuel and grocery prices and then abolished Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch needs to give us an explanation. The Prime Minister who said he would deliver 263 childcare centres to end the double drop—remember the dreaded double drop—gave us 38. The Prime Minister who said he would give us 2,600 trades training centres actually delivered fewer than 10 per cent. He needs to explain to the Australian people how someone who was so inadequate and incompetent then that he was rejected by his own parliamentary team can somehow justify regaining the prime ministership.
He said he would insulate one million roofs and instead he started more than 200 fires in people's houses. He said he would begin an education revolution and instead he spent—wasted and overspent—some $8 billion on overpriced school halls. He said he would fix public hospitals and he would have a referendum on this if they were not fixed by 2009. Well, I have to say that public hospitals are in a better state today, all thanks to coalition state governments and no thanks to the incoming Prime Minister.
I know the Prime Minister wishes to gloss over previous failures. I know the Prime Minister wishes to say that this is ground zero and the clock starts from now, but the Australian people are not mugs. We remember; we do not have amnesia. The people who are submitting themselves to the judgement of the Australian people will be judged on their deeds, not on their words. This is a Prime Minister who cannot run on his record. The government cannot run on the record of its first term because it dumped Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister and the government cannot run on the record of its second term because it has just dumped Julia Gillard as Prime Minister.
How is it that a Prime Minister who was chaotic and dysfunctional in office can suddenly be a Prime Minister of due process? He needs to explain how this will be. I have to say that the auguries are not good. He was 45 minutes late for his first press conference—the press conference at which he did not answer any questions. He said last night that he wanted to end the negativity and then all he could do was attack the opposition and its leader.
The point of being in this parliament is not to stop someone; it is to start something. What we on this side of the House want to start is a better government, a stronger economy and a prouder and more confident Australia. That is what we want to start, and that is what will happen if there is a change of government whenever the election is held. There is a clear choice between members on this side of the parliament and those opposite. Those opposite cannot help themselves. They believe in big government. We on this side support strong citizens. Members opposite cannot help themselves. They are obsessed with wealth redistribution. We believe passionately in wealth creation. Members opposite put their trust in officials. They cannot help themselves. We put our trust in the strong individuals that compose Australian society. They believe in the state; we trust the communities of this country. We want to build up the social fabric, not just build up ever bigger, ever more intrusive government.
The people of Australia know exactly what they will get from the coalition. We will stop the boats. We will scrap the carbon tax and the mining tax. We will put the budget back into the black. We understand that the families and households of Australia are doing it tough. That is why under the coalition they will get to keep their tax cuts and their pension and benefit increases without a carbon tax. That means that every Australian household's budgetary position at the end of the week, the fortnight or the month should be so much stronger. It is not just about building a richer society; it is about building a better society as well.
We know that the Australian people yearn to be their best selves and that is why, should there be a change of government, there will be a much greater engagement between this parliament and the government of our country and the Indigenous people of Australia. We know that the problem in Indigenous policy over the last generation has not been underinvestment so much as underengagement. That is why, should there be a change of government, I will spend at least a week every year as a volunteer in a remote Indigenous community, because if it is good enough for Australians to live somewhere then it is good enough for the Prime Minister and senior officials to stay there. And it is on this basis that we will pursue the real reconciliation that will make our country whole. It is fortified and informed by this: that we will pursue the constitutional recognition which will rectify our foundation document. We will not so much change our Constitution as complete it.
We want a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme because we think that the women of Australia deserve a fair go. They deserve a fair choice to have a career and a family at the same time, and we will give it to them. I am proud that the first political party to offer a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme that pays people their real wage, and not a welfare wage, while they are on parental leave will be the coalition that I lead.
We will not neglect the environment. Not only will we cut emissions with incentives, not penalties; we will send a permanent standing green army, 15,000 strong, to the rescue of our remnant bushland and our degraded waterways.
This has been a low and dishonourable parliament in many respects. And last night the prime ministership was debased yet again, to be traded by the faceless men rather than decided by the Australian people as it should be. The Australian people should control the prime ministership and the government of this country. That is why, Prime Minister, you should not run away, you should name the date. Name the date. Tell us when it will be. (Time expired)
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (15:47): I welcome this opportunity to speak in this matter of public importance debate. I note that the matter of public importance refers to a positive plan for Australia's future and I note that in the concluding remarks of Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister of Australia, there was not a lot of positivity in those concluding remarks. Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that we in the parliament have a big obligation to set something of a tone for the country. The Leader of the Opposition needs to go back to some basics—and we all need to—draw a deep breath and recognise that Australia is a very great country.
We have a rational base to be optimistic about our future. Let us look at the strength of the economy. Nearly 20 years of sustained economic growth. This is ultimately almost unmatched by any significant economy around the world. Low unemployment. Low interest rates. These are extraordinary achievements. Also, debt and deficit levels which are the envy of the rest of the world. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: if he would like a debate at the National Press Club on debt and deficit levels then I will name the date when we will have it.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr RUDD: No, we'll name the date for the debate. Did everyone hear that?
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr RUDD: So we are going to be debating debt and deficit at the National Press Club. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for responding so positively to my challenge to debate policy options for Australia's future economy.
Then you look at the remarkable strengths of the Australian people themselves. You know, you travel around the world and you see that in Australia we have remarkable social solidarity. We are a multicultural miracle to the rest of the world and as a result of which there is a huge dynamism in this country brought to our shores by successive waves of migrants over multiple decades. We are proud inheritors of that. So we have a rational basis to be optimistic about our future.
We have excellent relations with our neighbours. Our diplomatic relations with our neighbours in South-East Asia, East Asia and the rest of our wider region are in first-class working order. We have every basis for optimism for the future.
But, on top of that, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition and to those opposite that Australians, by instinct, are a positive people. We have always been that way. We have a can-do approach. If we see a problem, we get up, we fix it and we move on. The whole culture of our country is as a positive entrepreneurial country, and it is that sentiment which we on this side of the House intend to harness as we take the country forward.
In my experience in public life, Australians disdain a culture of negativity. They disdain the negativity which, regrettably, has become characteristic of this place. What I have said earlier in question time today is that the easiest thing you can do in Australian national politics is to use negative invective. The hardest thing you can do is to sit down, look at the facts, get briefed on the facts, look at the policy options—look at evidence based policy—make a decision, then implement it and then make sure that what you have implemented is actually working, and if it is not then reform it and change it.
That is the way you do public policy. Doing that properly in a positive way takes time and mental effort. Engaging in the politics of invective and negativity, frankly, takes about a nanosecond of time. This is another reflection I would leave to he who would put himself forward as the alternative Prime Minister of Australia.
The other thing that I would say about our people—the Australian people right across this vast land of ours—is how much we as a nation relish our unity as a people and how we instinctively resile from those who seek to divide us into one camp or another. I would say again to the Leader of the Opposition that this Australian people wants to see all sides of the political debate work together for the nation's future. So, if you have a genuine contribution to what we do differently on the economy, on asylum seekers policy, on national security, on education, on health, on what we do with housing or on what we do in Indigenous policy, we would like to hear about it!
That is why I said on the question of asylum seekers policy earlier today that, if the Leader of the Opposition would simply avail himself of the opportunity, we in the government would happily accommodate having him fully briefed by the national security agencies on every aspect of the circumstances which our brave men and women in uniform—the Australian Navy—confront on the high seas every day. That is the responsible approach. Then, once he has been briefed on the facts—one of them, of course, is public: the attitude of the government of Indonesia—he can then come and talk to us about what he thinks we should be doing differently, other than what we are. Because, other than that, it is just pure old politics.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
Mr RUDD: For those opposite who have trumpeted the 'Howard solution' as it was back in those days, I would say one thing: it was a staging post at Nauru, and 70 per cent of them all ended up back in good old Australia—an uncomfortable fact but a fact nonetheless. And do you know something? Facts tend to make our political opponents uncomfortable, because facts should form the basis of policy.
So Australians would like us to be positive in this place. They have a disdain for the politics of negativity and they also have a disdain for the politics of division and disunity. There is one other thing that I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition actually to reflect on this: those in the nation who observe the deliberations of the parliament would like us to show some basic civility to each other as well—some basic civility, and I have not seen a lot of that in evidence in recent times in this place. These, I believe, are the sentiments and the attitudes which the Australian people bring to their expectations of how we as a parliament and how we as a national government and how you as an alternative government behave in this place.
In the Australian Labor Party, our view of political life is about building the house up. We believe in building the house up. It takes time: brick by brick, laying the foundations, setting the walls and constructing the roof. That is how we see the task of nation building; that is how we see our mission in politics.
There is an alternative approach to politics which, unfortunately, I have seen too much of from the Leader of the Opposition, and it is: how do you tear the house down? We build up the house; it seems, regrettably, that those opposite are more interested in tearing the place down. I could say to those opposite: by instinct, I and my colleagues are nation builders. We believe that the business of the nation and the business of the nation's government is to build roads, to build rail, not to walk away from building rail, and to build a first-class, world-class National Broadband Network, and not simply to engage in the very cheap politics of scorn and derision—which is what we hear from those opposite. Can I say on top of that that, when it comes to the foundations of the house, we on this side of the House have laid strong economic foundations for Australia's future. We have strong economic growth—2.5 per cent over the year to March, almost the highest across a troubled OECD—and low unemployment, 5.5 per cent. But here is the killer. Those opposite talk about mismanagement on the part of the government. We have added one million jobs, almost, to the national workforce.
Mr Robert interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The member for Fadden is being disorderly, interjecting outside of his place in this chamber.
Mr RUDD: But, when we say that, those opposite resort to the old politics of negativity and derision.
I also say to those opposite that, in laying these strong economic foundations, we have also brought about low inflation, at 2.5 per cent, well within the band set by the Reserve Bank and the regulators; record low interest rates; and strong public finances. I mentioned that during question time. We have a AAA credit rating, a productivity upswing and market sector labour market productivity up two per cent over the past year, though there is much still to be done with productivity in this country.
In education, we have been rolling out the platform for an education revolution these last several years.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr RUDD: I noticed some interjections just then. Do those opposite oppose the 3,000-plus libraries we have built in the schools of Australia? Do they oppose them? Every time I have been to an opening, I seem to have run into members of Her Majesty's most loyal opposition. That is because they actually know, in their heart of hearts, that it is a very good thing. I have never run into a P&C or P&F that, when you are opening a school library, say, 'We don't want this library.' Do you know why? Because we want to build up the intellectual capital of the country. That is why we have also built 200 to 300 trades-training centres right across the country, in conservative held electorates as well as Labor held electorates, and for the Nats as well—Paul, good to see you up there. I salute you for your career in this place.
Mr Robert interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fadden, you are testing my patience!
Mr RUDD: Can I say also, on laying the economic foundations, that it is an education revolution which has now seen 190,000 more young people in universities than there were when we came to office. Why? We took a policy decision to uncap places—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Sturt is also testing my patience!
Mr RUDD: so that more working families' kids could get university—people who are qualified to go but under the previous regime could not find a place. So you are going to have more kids at university; more opportunities for those pursuing the trades, through hundreds of trades-training centres; and wired libraries across the entire school system so our kids can be plugged into the best teaching facilities across the country.
Then my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, is laying out world-class infrastructure through a proper decision-making process called Infrastructure Australia for road, for rail, for ports—across the entire spectrum. Without basic economic infrastructure, the nation's economic fundamentals cannot be guaranteed.
That brings me, of course, to high-speed broadband, broadband which will be world class, 100 megabits-plus per second, in order to plug us into the information economy of the 21st century, to make sure, as I said in question time earlier today, that our brothers and sisters in the bush are not disadvantaged—every Australian, rich or poor, country or city, with access to the information superhighway. If you are a small business operating out of Wangaratta, you have as much opportunity to get your product or your service to market as you have if you are running a business in the central business district of Sydney. That is our belief in laying the foundations of the nation's house.
We have also been in the business of constructing the walls. We have been pursuing a vigorous and strong foreign policy. We have—through both the Minister for Defence, who is now retiring from politics, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and also through the actions of multiple ministers—built the best set of bilateral relationships in Australia's region that we have had in this country's postwar history. That is just a fact. And we have been building a robust defence. We have major capital ships rolling off the production line. We have them about to join the ranks of the Australian Navy. We have also, of course, been working to improve Emergency Management Australia. These are all about how we maintain the security of the house. We are building the walls to make sure that they are robust against those threats which may come against us.
Then, on top of that, we have been not just laying the foundations with the economy, not just building the walls in terms of security, but also, in completing the house, constructing a roof for the protection of all. And, by doing that, we are making sure that those suffering from disabilities are properly cared for so that all Australians can have proper protection should they suffer disability. We are investing $1 billion over four years to start rolling out the first stage of DisabilityCare Australia. In superannuation, we are raising the rate from nine to 12 per cent. In pensions, 3.5 million pensioners will be up to $207 a fortnight better off for singles and $236 better off for couples—the biggest pension increase in Australia's history. In health, we have invested $4.6 billion in dental care and we have invested some $16.4 billion in the hospital system. For the information of the Leader of the Opposition, the level of federal funding of national expenditure on hospitals at the time at which the government of which he was a minister left office was 38.7 per cent; we are now on track to raise that to 50 per cent. There is a simple difference—building a roof under which people can be protected should they fall ill. There is a $2.2 billion investment in mental health. In aged care, there is a $3.7 billion reform package by the minister who has been responsible for that.
Then, beyond our task of laying the foundations, building the walls and constructing a roof for the protection of all, we have also been concerned about the environment beyond as well. We have acted on the environment. My colleague today referred to the achievements that we have delivered in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This is the first time in the Federation's history that we have a plan to manage the most important ecosystem in the country's interior. I congratulate the minister for his work. It is a plan we took to the previous election in 2007. We have worked on it and done the hard policy work. We have acted on climate change. We have brought in a price on carbon. On top of that, we have also brought in a mandatory renewable energy target of 20 per cent. Australia's emissions are going down and, as a result of all that, we are ensuring that the environment surrounding the great house called Australia is properly protected.
So I say to the Leader of the Opposition as we enter this period leading up to the national election that our task in politics is to build the nation's house up—lay strong foundations in the economy, in education and in infrastructure; build secure walls through our Defence Force and a strong foreign policy; and construct a roof which protects all Australians when they get into strife, whether through disability or through mental illness or other forms of illness—and to look after the environment as well. But I would say to the Leader of the Opposition—
Mr Abbott interjecting—
Mr RUDD: Regrettably, he seems to scoff and mock throughout this entire presentation. I would say this to him: his politics is not about building the house up; regrettably, his comfort zone is tearing the house down. I welcome the debate I will have with him at the National Press Club soon. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Government members: No!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (16:02): Name the date.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): I did not quite hear what you said, but I hope—
Mr ABBOTT: I am happy to repeat it, on indulgence.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did give you the call. I do not know whether the microphone was on.
Mr ABBOTT: On indulgence, I am happy to have the election debates. The Prime Minister just needs to name the date. Name the date.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: Do not be scared.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:03): The Australian people awoke this morning to the news that yet again the Labor Party had sacked its leader and changed the nation's leader. Yet again the Labor Party changed the head of government without so much as a fleeting concern for what the Australian people thought or who the Australian people wanted to lead the government. In fact, the Prime Minister has just spent 15 minutes telling us how wonderful everything is in his government. If that is the case, why is he refusing to explain the reason for sacking the former Prime Minister? Why have one-third of the cabinet refused to serve under the current Prime Minister? If everything is fine in the world of Labor, why have they sacked yet another leader, why have 45 members voted against this Prime Minister, and why have a third of the cabinet refused to serve?
The fact is Labor are using the office of Prime Minister as a weapon of retribution. They are using the office of Prime Minister to seek revenge for perceived past wrongs. They are using this office to get square with others because this is such a bitterly divided party. There is a civil war going on within the Labor Party. It is a bitter civil war and the conflict has not ended—in fact, the conflict is still writhing and festering and, until such time as the Australian people have their say as to who should govern this country, the civil war could continue. In fact, so dismissive are this party of the office of Prime Minister, they use it as a cheap game of pass the parcel. It is the nation's highest elected office and yet they are denying the Australian people the opportunity to have their say. All the while, while this civil war rages, the Australian people—together with their hopes, their dreams, their concerns and their needs—are being ignored by this government. In question time the Prime Minister was given many opportunities to explain why it is that they sacked yet another leader. As ministers stood up to laud the achievements of this government, not one of them could explain, if so much had been achieved, why they got rid of the leader who apparently achieved it. They are just consumed by revenge and driven by personal hatred.
There is an urgent need for stability and order in government. We have to have confidence restored to consumers, to business, to investors. The coalition is united; the coalition is ready to govern. The coalition can provide stable, certain and competent government—all we need is a date for the election. We have released a policy document—Our plan for real solutions for all Australians, which, at 52 pages, contains a wealth of information on our policies. It has solutions to deliver a strong economy in a secure nation.
But in contrast—whatever the Prime Minister tried to say and however he rehashed his old cliches and his old rehearsed lines—the failures of this government are writ large. The budget deficit goes for as far as the eye can see; it is the steepest descent into debt of any country apart from perhaps Iceland. Then there are the mining tax, which makes us vulnerable to charges of international uncompetitiveness; the largest carbon tax in the world, which is driving up the cost of doing business in this country; and the greatest policy failure of a generation, which is border protection. We are a less secure nation and we are more vulnerable as a result of this government and these two past prime ministers. Nothing that this current Prime Minister can say, and nothing that he can promise, will change the fact that it was his handiwork that found a solution to border protection and the issue of asylum seekers. He created a massive problem that has seen 45,000 people try to come to Australia via a revitalised people smuggling trade which has led to hundreds of deaths at sea. Not one of this lot will take responsibility for it. Shame on you! It is a monumental policy failure and at the core of it is this current Prime Minister's work.
As the Leader of the Opposition has so rightly pointed out—and you cannot argue with it—the government cannot run on its first term agenda, because they sacked Prime Minister Rudd for Prime Minister Gillard. The government cannot run on its second term agenda, because they sacked Prime Minister Gillard for Prime Minister Rudd. What is so troubling about this latest debacle is that Australia once had a proud reputation for stable and orderly government—an international reputation that was admired by so many others. Our predictability and our stability have been sullied. Last night I received messages from my foreign policy contacts in governments across the globe, who expressed their utter bewilderment at this turn of events. The Prime Minister's refusal to confirm the election date, and trying to weasel around when an election will be held, is creating even more uncertainty.
Some of those who are sitting in the chamber and some of those listening to this debate will remember the former Prime Minister's—that is Gillard, not Rudd—hand-picked foreign minister, in Senator Carr. Remember his first press conference last year—the first of his many gaffes—when he was asked about a potential delay in Papua New Guinea's elections? Do you remember that? In an extraordinary lapse of judgement, Senator Carr said that, if Papua New Guinea were to delay its elections even for a moment, he would have to mobilise the world opinion, isolate and condemn Papua New Guinea, and impose sanctions on Papua New Guinea. My colleagues will not be surprised to learn that some of my friends overseas have suggested to me that, should Prime Minister Rudd seek to delay the election, they will have no alternative but to impose sanctions on Australia and isolate and condemn Australia for its failure to hold an election on time. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword! Meet your own standards that you set for others.
As President Yudhoyono's spokesman said last night, this process of leadership change in Australia is 'beyond comprehension'. Yes, foreign investors are baffled by this. Business is dismayed. There is a deep yearning for a clear and united plan to deliver a stronger Australia, stronger borders and a better future for all Australians. They want to hear that a government will get rid of the carbon tax that is driving jobs, business and manufacturing offshore. They want to hear that a government will get rid of the mining tax, which is making our mining companies internationally uncompetitive. In fact, I met with a number of mining sector people today. They were telling me about their investments in other countries. I said, 'But what about Australia?' They said, 'You must be joking.' The instability that this government has provided—the massive increases in regulation, the massive increases in legislation, the massive increases in taxes and the duplication in approval processes—is driving investment offshore and it certainly is not attracting more foreign investment to this country.
That is why the coalition can provide strong, stable, competent and experienced government. The coalition is committed to restoring our international reputation and to reassuring the world that order can be restored to government in this country. The anarchy in the Labor Party is not reflective of the will of the Australian people and—most certainly, once the Prime Minister is honest with the Australian people and confirms the date—the Australian people will have their say.
In the area of international relations, I have outlined our policy position, our portfolio responsibilities, and our approach in trade and in foreign affairs in some detail. Should we be elected, we will move quickly to repair the damage caused by bans on the live cattle trade—which took away Indonesia's trust and confidence in us to be a reliable trading partner—and we will restore the standing of this country in the eyes of the international community. We will attract foreign investment to our shores, we will stand behind our mining and resources sector, we will build a stronger economy and we will be a government that Australia can be proud of.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (16:13): It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on this matter of public importance. You can tell that, although circumstances change, the one thing that does not change in this country is the opposition's tactics—not one iota. What have we seen from them in this matter of public importance? We have seen unrelenting negativity. They have got an MPI that talks about a clear and united plan, a stronger Australia and a better future. But what did we hear from them? Unrelenting negativity. What did we hear from them? A sort of vicious dark partisanship. What did we hear from them? Rank opportunism.
It is because they have been the most disloyal opposition in the history of this country, because what they have sought to do at every single opportunity is to divide the country along partisan lines for their own interests. This is the most disloyal, most destructive opposition since Fraser. That is the truth of the matter. They come in here and talk about a better future and a stronger Australia and a clear and united plan, but all they offer to the Australian people is this unrelenting negativity, this dark partisanship, this rank opportunism. They are the most disloyal opposition in the history of the country, seeking to divide at every single opportunity. They come in here with their 53 pages of slogans—what they think is a policy document—and think that the Australian people will fall for that. We know that this has been their modus operandi; we know that, even though circumstances have changed, their tactics have not.
They have been running around this country talking the country's economy down, undermining confidence, damaging jobs. If we had adopted the policies that they advocated during the global financial crisis, 200,000 jobs would have been lost in this country. We would have had a recession, just like the rest of the world. We know what the opposition leader was doing when the great debates on the stimulus package were going on—he was absent for a number of votes. That is on the record of the parliament, and some of us know why. They have been missing from votes, and when they have engaged in the debate there has been unrelenting negativity, undermining economic confidence. If we had embarked on the policies that they advocated at the time and that they advocate for the future—the policies of economic austerity—we know where that would have led the nation.
We know where the economics of austerity took the rest of the world. It gave the United States of America a recession so serious that it has been labelled the Great Recession. That is what the Americans call it—the Great Recession, second only to the Great Depression. In the United Kingdom there has been a double-dip and almost a triple-dip recession. They adopted the policies that are advocated by this disloyal opposition. Prime Minister Cameron, a Conservative, adopted these policies and they had a double-dip recession. They missed a triple-dip recession by a whisker.
Who suffers from these polices? Mature-age workers and young workers—they are the people who are thrown on the scrapheap of unemployment. A whole generation of young people around the world are suffering the effects of unemployment. There has been a recession in Europe so serious that it has disabled the economies of the whole world. We have seen areas in Spain that have extraordinary levels of unemployment that have not been seen since the Great Depression. The global financial crisis ripped away one per cent of world economic growth. Very few countries avoided that whirlwind, and Australia was one of them. It was the member for Lilley and the member for Griffith and the cabinet who made clear and decisive policies to combat and avoid that whirlwind and protect Australia. The opposition would have plunged Australia into recession.
We know what the opposition want to do on industrial relations—Work Choices will always be in their DNA, and we know that, whatever they promise, that policy will be the first of many that they try to implement in industrial relations. They have shied away from it because they think they might lose a vote or two here or there, if they are honest about their intentions in that area.
They have been in deep denial about the problem of climate change. They are part of the flat-earth brigade that President Obama has referred to. They are funded by the flat-earth brigade. Their membership is the flat-earth brigade. We have heard the hysterical claims of people like Senator Barnaby Joyce, a person who is seeking to become a member of this House, telling us that we will have $100 lamb roasts—Australians will never eat lamb again. We heard the Leader of the Opposition say that Whyalla would be wiped off the map—I can assure him, as a South Australian, that Whyalla still going strong.
While we have been acting, while we have been making tough decisions for this country, the opposition have been playing politics with climate change
First it was under their previous opposition leader, the member for Wentworth, combining with the Greens to block the emissions-trading scheme in the Senate. We know that they are now committed to a policy of ripping away the institutional frameworks which will help reduce emissions in this country and replace it with a system where we give taxpayers' money to big companies as some sort of incentive to stop polluting. It is a ridiculous policy. They are great slogans, but once they are put to the test, they do not make it.
What this will do is make us a pariah in the world at a time when everybody else is acting on climate change. The Americans are acting on climate change, with President Obama making a very, very serious statement on that. The state of California is enacting an emissions-trading system and parts of China are doing the same. Europe, of course, has an emissions-trading system. So just as the rest of the world is starting to come to grips with what is a very complex global problem, what would the opposition do? Rip it all up and make us a pariah in the world.
We have seen their dark partisanship in the area of asylum seekers. You saw it today in this debate—using people's fear to harvest votes. Complaining, complaining and complaining, lauding Prime Minister Howard for solving a problem that actually occurred on his watch—9,000 people came here on his watch. The difference between Prime Minister Howard and the prime ministers in this era is that the opposition in Prime Minister Howard's era actually backed him—gave the government the ability to act. What has this opposition done? After complaining for so long, when they were given a bit of legislation to send asylum seekers who arrived through irregular maritime arrivals in this country to Malaysia, what did they do? They came into this House and voted with the Greens to stop it—to prevent the government from enacting its program. They went into the Senate and voted with the Greens to prevent the government from enacting its program. They just want to create a problem, because they feed on the vote harvest that comes from it. We know that that is their intention at every opportunity—dark partisanship and opportunism; this relentless negativity and this attempt to divide the country.
This next election is going to be about the future and it is going to be about fairness. It is about securing the economy in what are still tough economic times. You only have to look at Europe, China, the United States of America or the United Kingdom to know that we are going through very difficult times in terms of the world economy. We are all about securing our domestic economy during that period. The Labor Party has the runs on the board, because we secured the Australian economy during the global financial crisis. Our economy is now 13 per cent bigger than it was prior to the global financial crisis. Every time you grow your economy, you grow your ability to service your debt. The reverse is true, too: if you shrink your economy through the economics of austerity, you shrink your capacity to deal with debt—you shrink your capacity to keep people employed and your national productivity agenda.
We know that securing the economy is the most important thing to do. Labor has always been focused on the jobs of working Australians. We think that this election will be about the future, it will be about fairness and it will be won by the Australian Labor Party.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:23): Listening to the Prime Minister on his matter of public importance today you could be forgiven for thinking that Rip Van Winkle had woken from a three-year-and-three-day-long sleep. Listening to the new Prime Minister speaking today, you could assume that three years and three days ago time stopped and nothing has happened since that time that anybody in Australia is allowed to remember, because Rip has woken from his very long sleep and all the apparent achievements that he has outlined today all occurred because of something linked to Rip Van Winkle, who has awoken from this deep sleep.
The Prime Minister has singularly failed in his address today to explain why the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had to be executed politically last night in this place. Listening to the new Prime Minister, you would think that we lived in a land of chocolates and roses, of wine and caring, and that in fact three years and three days ago time stopped on his watch and now he has been restored to his rightful place. Mr Smug is back and writ large—a condescending, patronising, smug, supercilious, sanctimonious, self-regarding new Prime Minister. That is who we now have as Prime Minister.
Mrs D'Ath interjecting —
Mr PYNE: We didn't interrupt anybody else, Yvette.
Mrs D'Ath: Speaker, on a point of order: firstly, I would like to be referred to by my correct title and, secondly, I believe the member should withdraw in relation to the comments he made about the Prime Minister.
An opposition member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: As I did not hear them, and for the sake of the good of the parliament, to which I think the member for Sturt would adhere, he should withdraw.
Mr PYNE: I am shocked, but I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr PYNE: I am shocked that calling somebody self-indulgent and self-regarding is unparliamentary. But, as we are in the dying days of this dishonourable, horrible, low parliament, which sank to a new low last night when the Prime Minister was put to the political sword without explanation, I withdraw for the good of the House.
What we have seen in the last 24 hours is the most extraordinary display of delusion from a new Prime Minister. He says that there cannot be any negative politics—no negative politics. This is the man who sent out an email today saying:
Negative destructive personal politics has done much to bring dishonour to our parliament …
Well, someone needs to tell the member for Hunter, or the member for Reid, or the member for Barton, or the member for McMahon, or Chifley, or Corangamite—all of these members that have been sent out like a pack of wolves, for three years and three days, to tear down the member for Lalor down. She was never given a chance. I admire one thing about the member for Lalor: she was tough. But even she could not withstand the dogs of war that the new Prime Minister sent out against her three years and three days ago. Who can forget his teary farewell in the Prime Minister's courtyard? Butter would not melt in his mouth. He was shocked and amazed that he had been removed from the prime ministership. Today he is back, smug and self-regarding as ever and wanting everybody to put out of their minds, like a bad dream, the last three years and three days.
I felt sorry for the former Prime Minister today. I even smiled at her in the chamber in the dying days of this parliament. I said, 'What went wrong?' because, listening to the new Prime Minister, you would think she had led a great government that had made terrific achievements—forgetting all the terrible disasters of the last three years and offering no explanation as to why this apparently great prime minister, who led a great government, had to be torn down by the pack of wolves that he sent out to relentlessly and negatively campaign against her.
All of the headlines in the newspapers and all the leaking of polling that was done to destroy the former Prime Minister was orchestrated by Kevin Rudd and his supporters. Senator Carr from the Senate—Senator Kim Carr, I should say, rather than Senator Bob Carr—was one of the henchmen who was used to destroy Prime Minister Gillard. But Mr Rudd wants us all to forget these three years of relentlessly, negatively, personally denigrating and destroying the Prime Minister. All the terrible stories that were leaked to the tabloid press about the Prime Minister's partner—none of them could have been known by the opposition. They were all known by members of her caucus—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sturt: I understand that MPIs are far ranging in debate—
Mr Pyne: They are very far-reaching, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: but this is over stretching the bounds of reach today and I would really be happy if we could maybe mention something to do with the MPI.
Mr PYNE: The MPI is how Australia needs a strong and stable government, and the first thing to deliver a strong and stable government is to explain to the Australian people why a prime minister had to be torn down by Kevin Rudd and his henchmen. The second way to deliver a stable country is to name a date for the election. One of the big stories today is that the Prime Minister is trying to slide away, like the snake in the grass that he is, from the election on 14 September.
The SPEAKER: The member will withdraw.
Mr PYNE: I withdraw, Speaker. The Prime Minister wants to avoid at all costs an election on 14 September. He wants to leave the date open. The people of Australia want an election. They demand a change. The people of Australia want to put this horrible parliament behind them and to elect a new government. I am sure the Minister for Health would agree with much of what I have said, because she was loyal to the former Prime Minister to the end. She was not one of their henchmen sent out to tear down the Prime Minister, unlike the member for Hunter and his coterie of people who have woven a very tangled web.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (16:30): Order! It being 4:30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Valedictory
Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith) (16:30): I take this opportunity to record a brief valedictory for the benefit of the House and more importantly for the record. I seek the indulgence of the House to make some remarks on my last day in the parliament. It is commonplace for members to stand here and to thank, as they should, officers of parliament, those that make life easier for us who are serving politicians, particularly ministers. But I begin by thanking the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of our nation for their forbearance. They have had to witness a period in their own living memory of the disassociation, disintegration in some cases, and then rejuvenation and renewal of their culture and their aspirations in a way which has been a great test of the first peoples of this country. It is entirely appropriate that the parliament now recognises that, as we do when we begin the session of parliament at the beginning of a parliamentary term. It is also entirely appropriate that we are developing an increasingly bipartisan approach to reducing the disadvantage that is borne very heavily by the first peoples of this nation. I commend the efforts of all in parliament. I see the member for Banks is here and I acknowledge his distinguished record in this regard.
I also thank family. Regrettably, my family is not here at the moment, but I put on the record, as have many other members who have reached this point, how extraordinary a contribution they make to all of us here, and none more so than in my case. I have been in public life for in excess of 30 years, probably more than 35 years, and in that time a great deal of time has been spent away from home. To my wife, Doris, and my children, Emily, May and Grace: big thanks. Again, it is commonplace for us to recognise that our staff are really us. They are certainly our arms and legs and, in my case, thankfully, sometimes they are our brains as well. You are only able to operate effectively and faithfully, as it were, in this place if you have good staff. The member for Perth reflected on the longevity of his staff. I have some staff who have experienced longevity in my terms as well. I thank them personally, in particular Kate Pasterfield, my deputy chief of staff; Denise Spinks, my chief of staff; and in my electorate office, Sandi Chick and Jenny Hunter. There are many others here and some in the chamber to whom I want to say: you cannot do this job at all, and you certainly cannot do this job well, unless you have staff that commit themselves to you and go the extra k and even more. Mine have done that and I very much appreciate their commitment and their loyalty.
Yesterday I made a statement to explain the reason I was standing down from the ministry and not recontesting my seat by saying that I came into this place as a frontman to become a team player. The one thing I want to reflect on is that if people are concerned about the way in which the public views the political processes, and if those of us who are participants in the process are concerned about our capacity to communicate that we are really on about serious issues of public policy then those are the things that we need to talk about and concentrate on. I know it has been a subject of considerable bemusement, including to those in the press gallery, that I will not jump up on my ministerial desk and do an air guitar, that I will not come into the House and quote my own song lyrics, that I will not take the opportunities that are afforded to people who have celebrity status and use that to advance either the causes of the government or the political party that I have come here as a member of. There is a very important reason for that and it is twofold: (1) I have too much respect for what I did before to belittle it in any way; and (2) I have too much respect for what we are doing and what we are trying to do here to try and use that. If it cannot stand on its own public policy foundations then engaging in stunts will not help in the long term.
However, having said that, I have endeavoured to do my best both in terms of loyalty and in terms of the disciplines that I think are very necessary in parliamentary politics, particularly with the intensity of the media cycle that we face. I am joined by some of my colleagues, but I will not mention any vocal performances at this point in time. What I am really trying to say is that you do not come here out of self-interest, you come here for the public interest. In doing that, you try to make your way through, wherever you are sitting in the parliament, and then you hope that you can make a contribution.
I do not want to produce a list of any kind about contributions, other than to highlight a couple of things which I think are useful to get on the record and to reflect in some ways on what I discovered when I came into the parliament when we were in opposition. The first thing I discovered was that Kim Beazley has a very loud voice. We were sitting on the backbench at the time, and I greatly enjoyed that experience. All of us recognise that the history of the modern settler nation is very much reflected throughout this building and all of the engagements here and the characters writ large on our stage. I was sitting in front of both Kim Beazley and Carmen Lawrence. Their scrutiny, their analysis, their commentary about Prime Minister John Howard at the time and their interjections were a great learning experience for me. The fact is that it does not matter where you come from or what you have done, when you come in here you start from the ground up and you learn from square one. You cannot just sweep in here, even if you have had some other career that has had a few blooms about it, and expect that the same thing will apply. I really wanted to learn the craft and apply myself to it. Of course, I brought a strong interest in the environment.
One of the things that I am pleased about is that we did have a very good policy when we came into the 2007 election, which in part was a recognition that the way in which we had been thinking about energy, about pollution and about the environment needed to change. I am extremely proud that we were able to argue strongly at that time for the renewable energy target and to see how well it is working now.
There are many other things that one could talk about of real importance there—I see Prime Minister Rudd is here; former Prime Minister Gillard as well—and what we have done on climate change will be recognised as a substantial transforming reform. We are doing it in a way that is thorough; we are doing it in a way that is intellectually honest; we are doing it in a way that is going to reap the planet some dividends, albeit too small over a longer period than I think is necessary; but we are in a position to do that now.
There is a reason business has confidence in the price on carbon. It is because it is an economically rational way of dealing with this issue. I think there is a reason the public, I hope, are now showing increasing confidence in the price that we have on carbon because it is working. What more could you ask for?
I was fortunate enough to serve in two ministries: Education, Heritage and the Arts and then latterly in Education, Early Childhood and Youth. I acknowledge the member for Watson here. The commitment that we made in government that I thought was important for us to make, to have a system of world-class marine reserves around this nation, was a very important thing for us to do, and to have it realised now, albeit with some risk in the other place, is one of the great conservation achievements of this party and in the true Labor position.
After all—and I will always try to be generous in recognition of environmental contributions across the parliament—it is fair for me say that despite much of the language that we get from the Greens party in the upper house, in this forum they have not delivered a great deal of conservation reform. I acknowledge former senator Bob Brown and his activities in Tasmania; and they are considerable. But here, in this place, if you want to look after the environment in a real way—it is our environment as a nation; every Australian's environment—you can only do it in the national parliament. The party that has done the most of it is the Australian Labor Party. Seeing that I have the member for Rankin and others here, I recall arriving with a cassette player at Kirribilli House and Prime Minister Hawke greeted me, wearing a pair of stubbies and a shirt. I was able to play him a track from Midnight Oil's 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 album called 'And There Must Be One Place Left in the World'—a song about Antarctica. As we know, the rest is history.
In any event, that was an important commitment to start thinking really seriously about the powers that an environment minister has and should responsibly exercise. I am very pleased that in all the decisions that I made, including some controversial decisions, particularly in Queensland with the Traveston Dam, there was only one of those decisions—and then on a technicality—that was ever overturned in any court or tribunal. Importantly though, we were able to elevate some of our beautiful natural places and give them the recognition and protection they deserved. I think of places like Ningaloo Reef on the World Heritage List and what a tremendous boon for Australia and Western Australia that will be; the listing of the Kimberley region on the National Heritage List; and some big and important reforms to do with the Great Barrier Reef. That is really about making sure that you work in partnership with farmers on the land side of the reef so that whatever is going into the water is a lot cleaner than it has been previously.
Crucially, though—and this is very important for me to put on the record—many of those reforms are literally under threat now with the attitude that has been taken by Premier Newman and the Queensland government. There is a taint of recklessness and disregard for our environment that washes through that Queensland government administration that, frankly, gives me great cause for concern. I can assure anybody listening, and those of my colleagues who are here, that once I leave this place I will be doing my utmost to make sure that those natural heritage and natural environment gains that have been hard won by the community and then by the parliament are kept in place.
I should go quickly now to education and I should thank former Prime Minister Gillard for giving me the opportunity to serve in that capacity because, in some ways—let's just face it—it is a no-win situation being environment minister. Fifty per cent of the Australian population wanted me to do much more and the other 50 per cent did not want me to do anything at all. So there we were in the middle. That's politics and quite often politics is finding that middle card and arguing it out as you go. I am proud of the legacy and I am proud of what I have seen continue.
There is one final thing to say: a couple of other decisions were particularly important. One was to seriously contest the question of whaling in the Southern Ocean—so-called 'scientific whaling'. It is a furphy to think that by dispatching boats down there for some colour and movement TV and fundraising for a nongovernment organisation you will stop the Japanese government supporting this activity. That is a complete furphy. Anyone who believes it needs to have a bit of Realpolitik and read a bit of history. The fact is that constructive engagement and very thoughtful policy development is needed around what we need to do and what we need to get out of our natural environment. Whales, surely, are worth more to us alive than they are dead. Surely they are. The research we have been doing with our colleagues in New Zealand, particularly important research, about cetaceans is showing that time and time again. They help us understand, by the way, the kind of impacts that we are seeing from a warming ocean just as they provide a sustainable income for those communities that have whale-watching activities.
But I digress. The next step to take, if one must, is to use the full force of the law and exercise the national interest in the international forum. The fact is that the case that is currently before the International Court of Justice will be the first time since, I think, 1972 that we have been in a tribunal to argue that case. And just to remind those present, 1972 was when we went to the court to protest against the French testing nuclear weapons at Mururoa Atoll. There you are.
I return to education, very briefly. This has been a very big and important reform for the government. It has been a huge privilege to be given carriage over those reforms, so I acknowledge, Julia, that you had given me those responsibilities. Just think quickly about what we have done, and it is a reflection on the federation. We have a national curriculum for the first time. It might sound like it is a kind of basic thing but why did it take us until 2012 to get a national curriculum? We needed a national vision. We needed to set the standards of a curriculum as high as we could for every student and then we needed to reach agreement with the states through the vexed processes of COAG et al to make it happen. Now we have done it, we have the best national curriculum in the world. You can access it by hitting 'enter' on your computer. It is a fabulous piece of work and it is empowering students and teachers Australia wide. We also brought in professional standards for teachers and principals—again, something really important to do. The Trade Training Centres in Schools Program was already incepted in the former term and we maintained that as well.
Most important of all, we responded to the first review into school funding in nearly 40 years, the Gonski review—recommendations that bore down upon us and charged this parliament to respond, and all of us to respond. David Gonski would be well known to many people here. He is an eminent Australian and a senior business figure not only in the Sydney business community but also Australia wide and regionally. His panel said that the quality of education in our country should not be the product of power, privilege or access to resources. That was the argument. They did not have to write anything else but, of course, they did. That was the thing that we needed to act on and I am pleased that we did.
This is a fair education funding system. It is one that has equity and excellence at its heart. If we can set aside some of the rancour and some of the partisanship that regrettably infects some of our national body politic then it will deliver for students from now and into the future. When I say deliver, I do mean deliver because it will provide certainty. It is focused on lifting those kids who have disadvantage and helping them to learn better.
Providing certainty through the funding appropriations, as everybody in this House knows, is the trick. Half of what we do here is fix up decisions that other people have made. They may have been good decisions or they may not, but we have to fix them up. And these decisions do not last long enough. It is not good enough for the parliament to sit here and give someone a program that lasts six or 12 months. What good is it? After nine months, they have to apply for the money again. The person who is working has to sit and take retirement. We have to provide certainty. There is nothing more important that we can provide than certainty for our teachers and our parents that the resources will be there helping them every step of the way. You watch schools come to life when they have those resources, when principals have the sovereignty and when they are focusing on doing the things that really count. I was extremely pleased and proud that we were able to see the Australian Education Bill pass the parliament at about 1.10 yesterday.
I conclude now because I have taken your indulgence, colleagues, and members of the public who are kindly listening, for too long. I want to speak about three things overall—some reflections from me as I have come into this place. The first is that I took Australian democracy so seriously that I decided to become a member of parliament. Then I was privileged enough to become a minister and a cabinet minister for two terms of government. From my perspective, I judge that to be an incredible opportunity but also a reflection of how important I think this place is. Yes, we do have the debates. Yes, there is lots of carry-on and, frankly, there are too many people here who have spent their lives doing that. Sometimes they need to take a big deep breath, step back and work out what the common interest is.
I know the member for Lyne is here. Thanks very much, Rob Oakeshott, for your contributions. But I have a faith and a confidence in democracy and it is born of the fact that we live in a truly successful, prosperous and very engaging and enlarging nation. It is one where there are opportunities to be a positive force in our region and to really lift up what our citizens can become in the future. There are very few limits for us here. I heard the Prime Minister speak about that today—building it on, and that is absolutely right.
In order to have faith and confidence in democracy, you have to understand it. I am pleased that in the national curriculum we will have civics and citizenship. It is essential that young people understand to some extent how this system works, that they simply do not get the information from grabs on TV, a bit online or a bit from blogging, or whatever it might be. That is not really what is happening here. Some serious things happen here. Sometimes we have our light-hearted moments but, ultimately, if it does not happen here effectively and with integrity then the rest of the democracy around us will fail, and we cannot afford to have that happen.
The second thing I want to address which may surprise some of you is our relationships in the region, particularly with China. I consider this to be a matter of significant national importance for us as a nation. We are going through an historic sea change and we saw that sea change in the period of the late 19th century and into the 20th century, and in the World War II period where we turned around and looked to the United States for some protection and security. But our region now is totally transformed. Quite often when I do education forums I get people to put up their hands and say what it was like for them 50 years ago, and which were the big countries back then. The big countries were America and the United Kingdom. The big countries now are China and India. China is very important, and there are others here who know this well.
I view with some concern a sentiment that I have seen expressed, sometimes in the business community and sometimes further afield, that on the basis of our trading engagement with China we ought to in some ways forgive what we can properly put as a national interest view and as an international view about governance, freedom, human rights and appropriate conduct in international relations. It is an important relationship. It is one that must be conducted in a constructive fashion, and I know that it is, but it is also one where we need to be very clear about the nature of the relationship. We need to think about it and talk about it a great deal.
The other thing I want to talk about is sustainability. I am going to take exception with one thing that I hear in this place right across the parliament—that is, that it is only about economic growth. It is not only about economic growth. I think a lot of us know that, but it is important for us to reframe what our task is here. If the task of the parliament is to consider what Australia will be like in 10, 20, 50, or 100 years time—and we do not have our hands on that many levers; we are not setting interest rates here, and probably a good thing—and we have these population boosters saying that we should have a population of 50 million or 60 million people then we can literally frisbee ourselves to the moon until we have sustainable planning and sustainability built into our economic systems.
It is not about economic growth; it is about the quality of growth. Of course employment and a meaningful livelihood are absolutely essential to that, but you are ultimately not going to have a meaningful livelihood unless you have in place the basic provisions that the ecosystem provides for us as well. That is a challenge. It is a challenge for government; it is a challenge for the opposition. I do not want to be rancorous here but I do not hold much confidence, from what I am hearing from the Leader of the Opposition, that he recognises the nature of that challenge.
The next thing to say is that our future is borne on three or four things. It is not about our natural resources, even though we have them; it is about our people resources. They are the most important resource a country has. Take a quick look. Countries can have pretty much equivalent numbers of natural resources. Why do some do well and others not do so well at all? There are generally two or three answers to that. One is the education capacity of their citizens. Another one is the rigour, the robustness, of their governance arrangements. Separation of powers, rule of law, respect of property rights—these things underpin successful nations. There is one final thing that lies underneath that as well: imagination and innovation. If you get those things in place, Australia will be an incredibly wonderful place to live in and an important country and a successful country in the 21st century. But, if we do not get those things in place, then life will be much tougher for us, for our successors and for those who sit in this chamber after I am long gone.
Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to put on record some of my thoughts. I did not have too much time to prepare this, I must confess—that may have been obvious to you! I do want to say that I have appreciated the opportunity to serve with those of you who are my colleagues on this side of the House. I have very much appreciated the support I have had from my staff, who are sitting over there in the advisers box. I cannot even tell you—if I look across there and talk too much longer, you know what will happen. To my friends and family and also many in the community who have provided support to me over time, you have my deep gratitude. I wish all of you in this House well in the future. Thanks very much.
Mr RUDD (Griffith—Prime Minister) (16:53): on indulgence, Speaker—We have just heard an eloquent presentation from a retiring member, based on his contribution to this parliament and this government in two great capacities, the environment and schools. He was an extraordinarily successful Australian prior to coming to this place. He will be remembered for the great contribution he has made in this place. I take to heart and am encouraged by the fact that he will hit the campaign trail to preserve our environmental achievements in Queensland once he departs this place. I wish him and his family all the best for the future.
Electorate of Casey: Anzac Centenary
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:54): I pass on my best to the member for Kingsford Smith on his final speech. Members of this House will have established local Anzac Centenary community committees, and the Casey committee was established back in May. I recognise those local members of the Yarra Valley and outer east community who have agreed to give of their time on that committee. The committee is chaired by Mr Ray Yates, who is the principal of Monbulk Primary School. He has strongly promoted the stories of ANZAC in his community, as well as contributing to numerous community organisations over many decades. Also on the committee is Brigadier Michael Phelps AM, recently retired, a senior member of the Australian Army; Mr Graham Warren, the former mayor and councillor of the Shire of Yarra Ranges; Mr Anthony McAleer,a local historian and author of a number of significant works on the contribution of local Anzacs from Mount Evelyn, Monbulk and Lilydale; Ms Margi Sank,who has contributed greatly to the Rotary Club of Lilydale, the Mount Evelyn Bendigo Community Bankand a number of other local causes; Mr Bob Gannaway,a prominent affiliate member and commemorations officer at the Healesville RSL; Ms Sue Thompson,a former journalist, and an author, historian and long-time promoter of the history of Lilydale and the district; Mr Chris Thomas,a prominent local business owner and community volunteer in the Upper Yarra; MrJohn Shackleton, principal at Gladysdale Primary School and a resident of Warburton; and Mr Blake Hadlow, the youngest member of the committee, a 21-year-old student from Mount Evelynwith a deep interest in the history of ANZAC. Blake is the grandson of the late Harry Smith of Montrose, who served Australia with distinction in Korea and then afterwards as a prominent member of the RSL. I want to thank each member of the committee for kindly agreeing to serve on it, for the benefit of our local community.
GP Super Clinics
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (16:56): I would like to speak on the Prime Minister's failed GP Super Clinics program. It is a matter of record that during the 2007 federal election the current Prime Minister—also the new Prime Minister and the old Prime Minister—promised 31 GP superclinics around the country. Incredibly, there are now still six GP superclinics from 2007 which are not open. There is no building, no GPs, no nurses, no nothing. Those clinics are in Gladstone, Mount Isa, Redcliffe, Townsville, Wallen and Wanneroo. Six clinics which were promised in 2007 are still not open. What we have seen is that, of the 64 clinics that the Labor Party promised, less than half are open. Of the 28 clinics which were announced by the current Prime Minister in the 2010 federal budget, we have only seen two open. We have seen a GP superclinic in Modbury which opened with no doctors. We have seen the Redcliffe clinic costs balloon out from $5 million to $13.2 million. In Noarlunga we have seen a $25 million, 50-room GP superclinic opened with only two doctors. After 18 months, it only has 2½ full-time equivalent GPs.
The Prime Minister needs to explain to families around the country why we are still waiting on him to deliver on the commitments he made in 2007. The Auditor-General has reported on this program and the report was damning about the administration of this program. It found they were disproportionately weighted towards marginal electorates, something the opposition has long identified. It also found that of the 36 GP superclinics announced while the current Prime Minister was Prime Minister, only three, or less than 10 per cent, were delivered on time.
I am pleased the member for Petrie is at the desk because she went to the 2007 election and promised a GP superclinic for Redcliffe in October 2007. Now, almost 6 years later, there is no GP superclinic. The GP superclinic is not open. It was a $5 million promise. It required a bailout in 2010. It required a second bailout in 2011. Out of the 64 clinics, this has probably been one of the worst. It is very hard to explain the nondelivery of this commitment that was made to the working families in 2007, whose infants from 2007 would now be six years old.
43rd Parliament
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted. I call the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) (17:00): On indulgence—at the conclusion of the 43rd Parliament I wish to make the point that we are concluding at 5 pm at the end of a parliamentary term for the first time since I have been a member of parliament. That is indicative that, whatever statements have been made about this parliament, it has functioned effectively. I thank all members of the House, particularly the members of the government but also the Manager of Opposition Business for his courtesy in the way that he has conducted himself with me in managing the business of this House.
I also want to single out the constructive way in which the crossbenchers have played a role in this parliament. In particular, I congratulate Speaker Jenkins, Speaker Slipper and you, Speaker Burke—all three—on the way that you have presided over this chamber. I also thank Clerk extraordinaire Bernard Wright and all involved with the functioning of the parliament. The parliament is now concluded, and I think it is appropriate that the parliament conclude with a very positive message, which is that during the days ahead I hope that we have more civility in Australian politics and that we bear that in mind when we return for the 44th Parliament, which I am looking forward to serving in.
The SPEAKER (17:01): I just want to add to the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of myself and the former Speakers in this parliament. This place cannot function without the magnificent staff in this building. They have risen to the challenge that the hung parliament has presented to them. They have done it with amazing grace and with amazing dignity, intelligence and perseverance at all hours of the day and night. I think everybody in the Australian public owes them a great deal of thanks.
The Hou s e adjourned at 17:02
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Minerals Resource Rent Tax
(Question No. 1360)
Mr Crook asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 February 2013:
(1) Does he know of any magnetite projects in Australia over the next five years that will be liable for the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT); if so, can he indicate the number.
(2) Does the statement made by the Minister for Resources and Energy on 2 November 2011 on ABC Radio: 'When…you go through the detail of this tax, you'll see that in terms of the small miners we've gone out of our way, for example, in magnetite to effectively provide them the opportunity to pay little or no tax, because at the taxing point magnetite the dirt is of very little value. The value is the downstream processing that occurs.' reflect the Government's policy position.
(3) What is the policy rationale for making magnetite subject to the MRRT.
(4) Did the Treasury use data from any magnetite companies when forecasting tax liabilities.
Mr Bowen: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) As the MRRT is a profits based tax, whether particular projects, including magnetite projects, will be liable to pay MRRT in a given year will depend on whether they have earned a MRRT assessable profit for that year. This, in turn, will depend on a range of factors including commodity prices, the exchange rate, and costs incurred in relation to the specific project.
(2) The MRRT is a tax on the proceeds arising from the sale of iron ore and coal, but only that part of the proceeds that is reasonably attributable to the resource. To ensure the MRRT does not tax the value-added by downstream processing and beneficiation, the point at which MRRT liability is determined is set at a point immediately after extraction. The value attributable to the resource at that point will depend on both the costs incurred in downstream operations and the final price received for the marketable commodity. Consequently, a lower value will be attributable to the resource in cases where significant downstream processing of the resource is required to produce a marketable commodity, relative to a case where it is not.
(3) The MRRT applies in relation to the extraction of iron ore and coal resources in Australia. The Policy Transition Group, in its report to Government in December 2010, considered that magnetite should be subject to the MRRT like other types of iron ore. The PTG noted that excluding magnetite would result in inequitable treatment of competing segments in the iron ore industry and may distort investment decisions within the sector. Such an outcome would be at odds with a key rationale for profit-based taxes such as the MRRT and PRRT which is to minimise distortions.
(4) MRRT revenue forecasts were calculated using an aggregate 'top-down' model which took account of industry data as a whole, rather than on a project by project basis. This was checked against a project-by-project model that was built for DRET during the PTG process.
National Long-Term Tourism Strategy
(Question No. 1446)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 20 March 2013:
In respect of the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy, for (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13, (d) 2013-14, (e) 2014-15, and (f) 2015-16, what was/is the total sum of funding for (through the Tourism Ministers' Council), and the Commonwealth's contribution to the (i) Destination Management Planning Working Group, (ii) Digital Distribution Working Group, (iii) Indigenous Tourism Working Group, (iv) Industry Resilience Working Group, (v) Investment and Regulatory Reform Working Group, (vi) Labour and Skills Working Group, (vii) Research and Development Advisory Board, (viii) Tourism Access Working Group, and (ix) Tourism Quality Council of Australia.
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
FUNDING - NATIONAL LONG-TERM TOURISM STRATEGY WORKING GROUPS
|
(a) 2010-11 |
(b) 2011-12 |
(c) 2012-13 |
|||
Working Groups |
Total Funding |
Commonwealth Contribution |
Total Funding |
Commonwealth Contribution |
Total Funding |
Commonwealth Contribution |
(i) Destination Management Planning Working Group |
$110,046 |
$55,023 |
$127,197 |
$63,599 |
$36,136 |
$18,068 |
(ii) Digital Distribution Working Group |
$143,243 |
$71,622 |
$- |
$- |
$401,215 |
$200,608 |
(iii) Indigenous Tourism Working Group |
$3,789 |
$1,895 |
$47,472 |
$23,736 |
$180,160 |
$90,080 |
(iv) Resilience Working Group |
$133,589 |
$66,795 |
$99,700 |
$49,850 |
$60,000 |
$30,000 |
(v) Investment and Regulatory Reform Working Group |
$660,303 |
$302,810 |
$195,792 |
$75,662 |
$99,560 |
$49,780 |
(vi) Labour and Skills Working Group |
$70,095 |
$35,048 |
$263,776 |
$131,888 |
$1,126,037 |
$563,019 |
(vii) Tourism Research Advisory Board |
$70,340 |
$35,170 |
$41,581 |
$20,791 |
$772,150 |
$386,075 |
(viii) Tourism Access Working Group |
$94,799 |
$47,400 |
$132,338 |
$66,169 |
$47,000 |
$23,500 |
(ix) Tourism Quality Council of Australia |
$100,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$25,000 |
$50,000 |
$25,000 |
(d) to (f) Funds have not been allocated to working groups beyond 2012-13 at this stage.
Tourism
(Question No. 1447)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 20 March 2013:
In respect of the Government's election commitment to allocate an additional $40 million to the T-QUAL Grants program;
(a) what sum will be allocated per financial year;
(b) will all funding be expended in the forward estimates;
(c) how many funding rounds will be conducted with this money;
(d) has any portion of this sum been allocated to meet specific election commitments; if so, which ones, including the amount committed, project name and description and electorate; if not, will the entire pool be distributed by his department on application; and
(e) what proportion (as a percentage) will be (i) distributed as grants, and (ii) allocated to administration and advertising expenses.
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The Government allocated $40 million over four years from 2011-12 to 2014-15 for the T-QUAL Grants Program. Ministerial decisions were subsequently taken to: (1) reallocate $3.84 million to the Enterprise Connect Program – to extend the business support services provided under that program to tourism businesses nationally; and (2) reallocate $2.50 million to Tourism Australia – to fund three tourism online and China technology projects consistent with the policy objectives of the T-QUAL Grants Program. As a result of these decisions, funding for the T-QUAL Grants Program was reduced to $33.66 million over four years. A breakdown of funding allocated by year is provided in the table below.
Year |
Funding ($m) |
2011-12 |
6.947 |
2012-13 |
8.709 |
2013-14 |
8.004 |
2014-15 |
10.000 |
Total |
33.660 |
(b) The Department expects all funds allocated for T-QUAL Grants will be fully expended.
(c) Three funding rounds will be completed for the T-QUAL Grants – Tourism Quality Projects. Eight projects have been advertised and awarded funding for T-QUAL Strategic Tourism Investment Grants (STIG) in 2011-12 and 2012-13. Further STIG projects are likely to be funded in 2013‑14 and 2014-15.
(d) No.
(e) The Department estimates that around 93 per cent of T-QUAL Grants funds will be distributed as grants and around seven per cent of funds will be allocated to program administration, including advertising and staff costs.
Tourism
(Question No. 1448)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 20 March 2013:
In respect of the Government's election commitment to allocate an additional $40 million to the T-QUAL Grants program, for (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13, (d) 2013-14, (e) 2014-15, and (f) 2015-16, (i) what number of grants were/will be awarded, and at what total sum, and what was the total (ii) administrative cost, and (iii) cost of administration and marketing.
Answer
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable Member's question is as follows:
(a)2010-11:
- Not applicable. Funding for the T-QUAL Grants Program commenced in 2011-12.
(b) 2011-12
(i) 121 projects were offered funding in 2011-12 under the 2011 round of T-QUAL Grants – Tourism Quality Projects. 14 did not proceed. Total grant expenditure on projects funded through the 2011 grant round will be around $7.2 million (excl. GST). The Department awarded seven T-QUAL Strategic Tourism Investment Grants in 2011-12 valued at $4.6 million (excl. GST).
(ii) Total program administration expenditure was $0.615 million.
(iii) Advertising and marketing expenditure was $82,025.
(c) 2012-13:
(i) 86 projects were offered funding in 2011-12 under the 2012 round of T-QUAL Grants – Tourism Quality Projects. Six did not proceed. Total grant expenditure on projects funded through the 2012 grant round will be around $6.3 million (excl. GST). The Department will award one T-QUAL Strategic Tourism Investment Grant in 2012-13. Applications to deliver the Welcoming Chinese Visitors project are currently being assessed.
(ii) Total program administration expenditure was $0.463 million.
(iii) Advertising and marketing expenditure was $31,648.
(d) 2013-14:
(i) Applications for the 2013 round of T-QUAL Grants – Tourism Quality Projects are currently being assessed. Funding of up to $7.7 million (excl. GST) is available for the 2013 grant round. It is anticipated that further T-QUAL Strategic Tourism Investment Grants will be awarded in 2013-14.
(ii) Allocation for expenditure on program administration in 2013-14 is $0.475 million.
(iii) There is no fixed allocation for advertising and marketing.
(e) and (f) 2014-15 and 2015-16:
(i) Funding for the T-QUAL Grants Program does not extend beyond 2014-15.
(ii) Expenditure on program administration in 2014-15 is expected to be around $0.5 million.
Tourism Quality Council of Australia
(Question No. 1450)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 20 March 2013:
What was/is the total budget for the Tourism Quality Council of Australia for (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13, (d) 2013-14, (e) 2014-15, and (f) 2015-16.
Answer
Mr Gray: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) to (f) The Tourism Quality Council of Australia does not have a formal budget allocation. It is a body that provides advice and recommendations to the Government on the National Tourism Accreditation Framework.
Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government: Staffing
(Question No. 1483)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 21 March 2013:
In respect of Program 1.1 of his department, (a) what total number of staff are currently employed, and how many are (i) full time, (ii) part time, and (iii) casual, (b) what is the current number of salary bands available, including Senior Executive Service, and the salary range for each, and (c) what was the total cost of staffing for (i) 2011-12, and (ii) 2012-13 (to date).
Ms King: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Outcome and Program structure is a financial planning and reporting framework. While the Department provides a notional indicative average staffing level for each outcome, it does not collect any detailed HR data such as the nature of engagement, classification, or total employee costs by Program.
Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport
(Question No. 1484)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 21 March 2013:
In respect of Program 1.1 of his department, in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, and (c) 2012-13 (to date), what number of staff have left through (i) resignation, (ii) redundancy, and (iii) other, and what total sum was spent on recruitment.
Ms King: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Outcome and Program structure is a financial planning and reporting framework. While the Department provides a notional indicative average staffing level for each outcome it does not collect any detailed HR data such as the number or nature of separations against each outcome or program.
Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government: Staffing
(Question No. 1485)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 21 March 2013:
In respect of Program 1.2 of his department, (a) what total number of staff are currently employed, and how many are (i) full time, (ii) part time, and (iii) casual, (b) what is the current number of salary bands available, including Senior Executive Service, and the salary range for each, and (c) what was the total cost of staffing for (i) 2011-12, and (ii) 2012-13 (to date).
Ms King: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Outcome and Program structure is a financial planning and reporting framework. While the Department provides a notional indicative average staffing level for each outcome, it does not collect any detailed HR data such as the nature of engagement, classification, or total employee costs by Program.
Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport
(Question No. 1486)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 21 March 2013:
In respect of Program 1.2 of his department, in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, and (c) 2012-13 (to date), what number of staff have left through (i) resignation, (ii) redundancy, and (iii) other, and what total sum was spent on recruitment.
Ms King: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Outcome and Program structure is a financial planning and reporting framework. While the Department provides a notional indicative average staffing level for each outcome it does not collect any detailed HR data such as the number or nature of separations against each outcome or program.
Myregion Website
(Question No. 1489)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 14 May 2013:
In respect of the 'Myregion' website, (a) what was the cost of constructing the site, (b) on what date was the site launched, (c) what has been the annual cost of (i) hosting, and (ii) maintaining the content of, the site since its launch, (d) on how many occasions has the site been updated since its launch, (e) what number of full time equivalent employees (i) were involved in constructing the site, and (ii) maintain the site, (f) what positions are responsible for approving site content for publishing, and (g) what number of unique visitors have there been each month since the site's launch.
Ms King: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Total supplier cost of constructing Myregion was $705,382.
(b) Phase one was released to the public on Friday 26 August 2011.
(c) (i) Hosting in 2012-13 will cost approximately $13,330.
(ii) Maintaining the content of the site costs approximately $91,380 pa.
(d) All updates are available on the website.
(e) (i) Three FTE.
(ii) Two FTE.
(f) SES Band 1 and EL2.
(g) There are 17,701 average monthly unique visitors.
Regional Development and Local Government
(Question No. 1490)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 14 May 2013:
(1) How has his department ensured that regional implications are embedded in broader policy considerations and program implementation across the Australian Government.
(2) For what programs in 2012-13 (to date) has his department provided input on regional implications.
Ms King: The answer to the honourable member's question that was directed to the former Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP is as follows:
(1) The Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport (the Department) supports a strong, creative and liveable Australia by focusing on regional development, arts and sport and empowering communities to improve economic and social outcomes. At the core of the Department's work is an understanding of the significance of the regions to Australia's economy, environment, wellbeing and identity. The Department achieves this through partnerships and policy design which gives regions a voice and contributes to effective service and program delivery.
The Department plays a coordinating role, working across Australian Government agencies to ensure regional implications and opportunities are embedded in policies, programs and service delivery. The Department supports the COAG Standing Council on Regional Australia which enables the Australian Government, states and territories to work closely on regional matters. Additionally, the Department has developed the Regional Australia Impact Statement (RAIS) which is used to inform the Government of the likely specific impacts, positive or negative, of a new policy on regional Australia. The RAIS must be included in all Cabinet Submissions and associated new policy proposals that are likely to impact on regional Australia.
( 2 ) The Department provided regional policy advice to ensure regional input and perspectives were included in policy development and implementation across government.
The Department contributed to the development of major policies relating to regional economic development, regional infrastructure and regional engagement across government through the COAG Standing Council on Regional Australia.
The Department also contributed to the design of regional elements of major government policies and reform in the areas of education, health, aged care, immigration, the Clean Energy Future plan, the Asian Century White Paper and the National Food Plan.
A key success for the year was the 2013-14 Regional Budget package which identified Government initiatives for regional Australia. These initiatives are outlined in the Ministerial Budget Statement Regional Australia: Strengthening Communities.
Regional Development and Local Government
(Question No. 1496)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 14 May 2013:
In respect of his department's regional policies on (a) health, (b) education, (c) skills, (d) infrastructure, (e) environment, and (f) industry, (i) how, and (ii) with whom, has his department collaborated.
Ms King: The answer to the honourable member's question that was directed to the former Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP is as follows:
My Department works collaboratively with all levels of government and with a range of community and industry stakeholders to advocate for positive outcomes for regional Australia, including in the areas of health, education, skills, infrastructure, environment and industry.
My Department acts as a conduit to provide local information from the ground up to inform Commonwealth policy and program design and delivery, including information generated through local governments and the Regional Development Australia committee network.
My Department also plays a coordinating role, working across Australian Government agencies to ensure regional implications and opportunities are embedded in policies, programs and service delivery. For example, my Department has contributed to the design of regional elements of major government policies and reform in the areas of education, health, aged care, immigration, the Clean Energy Future plan, the Asian Century White Paper and the National Food Plan.
The Department also administers the Regional Australia Impact Statement (RAIS) which is used to inform the Government of the likely specific impacts, positive or negative, of a new policy on regional Australia. A RAIS must be included in all Cabinet Submissions and associated new policy proposals that are likely to impact on regional Australia. Additionally, my Department supports the COAG Standing Council on Regional Australia which enables the Australian Government, states and territories to work closely on regional matters.
Infrastructure and Transport
(Question No. 1498)
Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 14 May 2013:
In (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13 (to date), what sum of funding was provided by his department for the
(i) Blacksoil Interchange project,
(ii) Townsville Ring Road Stage 4 project,
(iii) Peak Downs Highway project,
(iv) Yeppen Lagoon Bridge and Roundabout project,
(v) Gladstone Port Access Road project,
(vi) Perth Airport Roads project,
(vii) Mackay Ring Road Study, and
(viii) Scone Level Crossing Study.
Mr Albanese: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Funding allocations for projects under the Nation Building Program are available from www.infrastructure.gov.au.
Prostate Cancer
(Question No. 1506)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 14 May 2013:
In respect of the drug for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer, abiraterone acetate (Zytiga®), that has been recommended three times by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), (a) why is it not listed on the PBS, (b) what aspects of the PBAC's recommendation is the manufacturer not satisfied with, and (c) what action has the Government taken to seek to resolve this impasse.
Ms Plibersek: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) The Australian Government recognises that metastatic prostate has a significant impact on the Australian community and is committed to improving outcomes for men affected by this disease and their families.
On 30 June 2013, I announced that the Australian Government had approved the listing of abiraterone acetate (brand name Zytiga®) on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer, at a cost of $46 million over four years. The listing is subject to final arrangements being met by the supplier of this medicine, but is expected to be made available from 1 August 2013.
Abiraterone acetate's availability on the PBS is a significant development in the treatment of prostate cancer – the most common cancer in Australian men. Over 1,000 patients will benefit from the PBS listing of abiraterone acetate.
(b) At its March 2012 meeting, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) recommended the PBS listing of abiraterone acetate (Zytiga®) for the treatment of metastatic advanced prostate cancer, as an Authority Required listing.
However, Janssen-Cilag Pty Limited, the manufacturer of abiraterone acetate, was not satisfied with a number of aspects of the PBAC recommendation, including the price offered for a PBS listing of the medicine, and made a re-submission requesting the PBAC to review its decision.
The PBAC considered the re-submission for the review of the proposed PBS listing for abiraterone acetate at its July 2012 meeting, and again recommended listing abiraterone acetate tablets as an Authority Required listing.
The sponsor yet again decided not to proceed with the listing as it was again not satisfied with the price offered for the PBS listing of abiraterone acetate from the PBAC recommendation, and lodged another submission with the PBAC for its consideration at the November 2012 PBAC meeting. This was again recommended by the PBAC.
The sponsor has now accepted the PBAC recommendation of November 2012.
Had Janssen-Cilag Pty Limited proceeded with the PBAC's initial recommendation from its March 2012 meeting, the Australian Government's decision making processes would have enabled consideration and potentially PBS listing of this medicine in 2012.
(c) Refer to (a) and (b). It should also be noted that the Australian Government relies on the advice and recommendations of the PBAC. It would be inappropriate for the Government to interfere with or exert influence over the work of the independent PBAC.
Sri Lanka: People Smuggling
(Question No. 1518)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 27 May 2013:
In respect of the Minister's four point plan to reduce incentives for smuggling ventures in Sri Lanka (Australia-Sri Lanka talks: Four-point plan to fight people smuggling, media release, 17 December 2012):
(a) what total sum has been allocated to the Government of Sri Lanka, directly or indirectly, to reduce incentives for people smuggling ventures;
(b) how will these funds be spent, and how will they achieve the desired result;
(c) what accountability measures are in place in respect of these funds, including for mitigating against corruption, and
(d) what action is being taken by the Australia Government in respect of allegations that Sri Lankan Government officials are involved in sending asylum seeker boats to Australia.
Mr Marles: On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) to (c) Australian agencies deliver a range of capacity building programs to strengthen Sri Lankan border control, investigation and prosecution capability to combat people smuggling. No funds are provided directly or indirectly to the Government of Sri Lanka.
(d) This is a matter for the Sri Lankan Government.
Sri Lanka: Education Funding
(Question No. 1519)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, in writing, on 27 May 2013:
In respect of the $34.35 million provided for education in Sri Lanka:
(a) what measures has the Australian Government taken to ensure equal distribution of funds to every citizen of Sri Lanka, and what accountability measures are in place to ensure the funds are used appropriately, and
(b) what part of this funding has been allocated to the Northern and Eastern parts of Sri Lanka, and how will it be allocated in these areas.
Mr Marles: On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) This support is provided by AusAID through a World Bank project – the Transforming School Education Project (TSEP). The project funds improvements to primary and secondary education in state schools throughout Sri Lanka and supports the implementation of the Government of Sri Lanka's education sector plan. Over the life of the four-year project it is expected that 4 million Sri Lankan students and 250,000 teachers will benefit from TSEP.
The program is not designed to provide equal distribution to every citizen of Sri Lanka but to provide extra support where it is needed. A formula, which includes factors such as poverty indicators and population distribution, is used to determine how much funding goes to each province under TSEP. This is to ensure the project gives appropriate attention to schools with the greatest needs.
The World Bank ensures funding provided under TSEP is used appropriately by undertaking regular project supervision and the ongoing application of its safeguards to guard against fraud and other potential risks to the project.
(b) AusAID estimates that out of a total project budget of $134 million about $34.4 million (or 25.7 per cent) will benefit school students in the Eastern and Northern provinces of Sri Lanka. This means that one-quarter of the project is focused on the two poorest provinces in Sri Lanka.
TSEP allocates funds in accordance with provincial education action plans. These plans must be in line with the Sri Lankan Government's national education sector plan that aims to improve access and quality and strengthen governance across the nation's school system.
Sri Lanka: Navy Training
(Question No. 1520)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, in writing, on 27 May 2013:
(a) What training will be provided to the Sri Lanka Navy in respect of Australia's commitment to providing surveillance equipment and training, as well as sharing intelligence on people smuggling networks, and
(b) What procedures are in place as part of this commitment to ensure that the Sri Lanka Armed Forces act lawfully and within the rules of international law.
Mr Marles: On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) and (b) Australia cooperates with the Sri Lankan Navy to combat maritime people smuggling to Australia. Australia ensures that all training and assistance provided to the Sri Lankan Navy is carried out in compliance with relevant international law.
Joyce, Mr Matthew
(Question Nos 1521 and 1522)
Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 28 May 2013:
In respect of Mr Matthew Joyce, sentenced to 10 years in jail in Dubai and fined $25 million, (a) what actions have been taken to support Mr Joyce and his family in their desire to return to Australia, and (b) what is the Government doing to help Mr Joyce in appealing his conviction.
Mr Marles: On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Mr Joyce was convicted of commercial offences in the Court of First Instance in Dubai on 20 May 2013. He has lodged an appeal against that ruling. It is not yet clear when the appeal court will be constituted and commence its deliberations. While Mr Joyce is subject to legal processes in Dubai, he is unable to leave the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Following representations by the Australian Government, the UAE authorities recently returned the passport of Mr Joyce's wife which had initially been withheld as part of Mr Joyce's bail conditions. Accordingly, his wife and children are free to travel out of the UAE if they wish.
(b) The Government has provided extensive assistance to Mr Joyce and his family since he was charged in 2009. Consular officers have attended all but one of his court hearings and the Australian Embassy in the UAE is maintaining close and regular contact with Mr Joyce and his family.
The Government has made 22 representations at the political level to the UAE Government regarding Mr Joyce's case, including three by the Prime Minister, one by the Governor-General level and fourteen at Foreign Minister level. The Australian Ambassador to the UAE has also made numerous representations at senior levels of the UAE Government. In those representations, the Government has registered concerns about the duration of the legal process, underlined our expectation that Mr Joyce will be afforded due process, and underscored the adverse impact of the proceedings on the welfare of Mr Joyce and his family. The Government's representations also drew the attention of senior figures in the UAE Government to the findings of a relevant civil case in the Victorian Supreme Court involving the Sunland company.
In relation to Mr Joyce's appeal, the Government will continue to register with UAE authorities our view that the appeal process should be conducted in a timely and thorough way, and that due regard should be given to all submissions made by Mr Joyce in his defence. Our Embassy will be consulting closely with Mr Joyce and his legal representatives during the appeal process and will continue to provide consular assistance to Mr Joyce and his family.
Defence: Senior Staffing
(Question No. 1525)
Mr Robert asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 30 May 2013:
In respect of new Australian Defence Force positions referred to in the Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2013-14 (page 22), (a) what 2 One Star and above positions were created, and why, and (b) what 59 Senior Officer positions were created, and why.
Mr Stephen Smith: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) and (b) The numbers that are identified in Table 10 (page 22) of the Defence Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) 2013-14 do not refer to positions, but rather the forecast of the average number of personnel who will be paid in each financial year.
There were 99 vacant approved senior officer positions (Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel equivalent as defined in the PBS) as at 21 June 2013. The planned growth of personnel at senior ranks, as has been identified in the PBS 2013-14, reflects the requirement to reduce gaps at these rank levels and is part of the overall ADF growth plan.
The ADF workforce is currently below Average Funded Strength guidance and is forecast to be 1,249 below funded guidance in FY 2012-13. The total forecast growth in the PBS 2013-14 for the ADF Permanent Force from FY 2012-13 to FY 2013-14 is 2.7%; this reflects the need to grow the workforce towards Average Funded Strength guidance. The forecast growth of senior officers and star ranked officers as identified in the PBS is proportionate to the total planned workforce growth.
Live Animal Exports
(Question No. 1526)
Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 4 June 2013:
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—In respect of the Australian Meat Producers Group's recommendations on the reform of the red meat industry organisational structures, (a) has the Minister reviewed and responded to them, and (b) can the Minister reveal the Government's policy position on them.
Mr Fitzgibbon: The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) The Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, reviewed the Australian Meat Producers Group's recommendations in the 2011 Senate Inquiry submission into the role and effectiveness of Government, Meat and Livestock Australia Limited, Livecorp and relevant industry bodies in improving animal welfare standards in Australia's live export markets. Senator Ludwig has also met with Australian Meat Producers Group representatives on a number of occasions regarding the red meat industry structure.
(b) The Rudd Government will make decisions regarding industry policy in due course and in response to proposals which demonstrate a whole-of-industry approach.
Child Support
(Question No. 1532)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 26 June 2013:
In respect of instances where parents have equal care of their children, but because there is an uneven number of days in a year, are recorded in the child support system as having an unequal share (182 versus 183 nights/49 per cent versus 51 per cent), (a) for how long has this been policy, (b) since the inception of this policy, how many associated complaints has the department received, and (c) what steps has the department taken or is it taking, to amend the system so that in such instances each parent is recorded as having equal care of their children.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(a) Since 1 July 2008, child support law requires a person's care of a child to be expressed as a percentage. This means, in situations where care of a child is shared equally, the number of nights that each parent provides care for the child over a 12 month period would be 183 to one and 182 to the other. Expressed as a percentage, this equates to 51 per cent and 49 per cent. However, if, in discussion with the Department of Human Services, parents advise that they each have exactly 50 per cent care, care will be recorded as 50 per cent to each parent rather than calculated on the basis of 183 / 182 nights.
(b) Information about the number of complaints specifically against care being recorded as 51 per cent to one parent and 49 per cent to the other is not available.
(c) As per (a) above, where both parents agree that they share the care of their child equally, functionality exists in the child support system to record shared care for each parent as 50 per cent. However, if the decision is that one cares for the child 183 nights of the year and the other 182 nights, the percentage of care resulting from those nights is recorded as 51 per cent and 49 per cent respectively. This is due to a legislative rule that requires percentages of care that are not whole numbers to be rounded down to the nearest percentage when the number is less than 50 per cent and rounded up when the number is more than 50 per cent.
Whether a person is recorded as providing 49 per cent, 50 per cent, or 51 per cent care for a child, their cost percentage will be 50 per cent. This means that they are taken to be meeting 50 per cent of the overall costs associated with that child when the child is in their care and the rate of child support will be the same. That is, the assessed rate of child support would be exactly the same whether the person's care is 49 per cent, 50 per cent, or 51 per cent.