The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Truss.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (09:02): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 is to strengthen the role of Infrastructure Australia, as an independent, transparent and expert advisory body through a change in its governance structure and through better clarification of its functions.
This government is committed to ensuring that Australia has the productive infrastructure we need to meet the challenges ahead.
Australia's future growth will be significantly influenced by our capacity to deliver more appropriate, efficient and effective infrastructure and transport. Investment in nationally significant infrastructure is central to growing Australia's productivity and improving the living standards of Australians now and in the future.
To maximise productivity improvement through investment, funding must flow to projects that yield the highest benefits. Therefore, it is critical to base project selection on rigorous analysis and sound planning to avoid wasteful investment. The government recognises that Australia needs improved planning—coordinated across jurisdictions—to underpin investment decisions and regulatory reforms.
We are, therefore, focused on long-term planning based on robust, evidence based findings through a greater understanding of the critical issues facing Australia's infrastructure and land transport system.
While the government fully supports Infrastructure Australia in its role as a key advisor to government on infrastructure project and policy reforms, it is committed to strengthening it by restructuring its governance, clarifying the scope of its responsibilities and entrenching its role as a key adviser to government.
Infrastructure Australia was established by the former government in 2008 as an independent advisor to governments in an effort to eliminate the short-term cycle in project prioritisation and to develop a national view on infrastructure priorities and policies.
Infrastructure Australia, however, has not been successful in fundamentally changing the way projects are identified as national priorities. Whilst it has delivered priority project lists, projects are derived from state and territory government project proposals and the prioritisation is based on the extent to which the project business case is advanced rather than the extent to which the project will contribute to improved national productivity.
Moreover, the current structure of Infrastructure Australia does not provide the degree of independence and transparency needed to provide the best advice to government about the infrastructure priorities that will reverse Australia's productivity slide.
The bill will re-establish Infrastructure Australia as a separate entity under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, which will provide for an independent governing entity that is both legally and financially separate from the Commonwealth.
It will strengthen its independence, improving Infrastructure Australia's ability to build strong relationships with state and territory governments and industry, which are collectively responsible for delivering and managing much of Australia's infrastructure assets.
Notwithstanding the proposed changes, Infrastructure Australia will remain an advisory body only. It will not be the decision-maker in terms of funding allocation. That responsibility, rightly, will remain with governments.
The change in governance structure will allow Infrastructure Australia to better demonstrate transparency and rigour in its prioritisation of projects and its advice on policy reforms while facilitating a level of independence from governments.
The changes to Infrastructure Australia's governance structure include:
abolishing the Infrastructure Australia Council and the position of Infrastructure Coordinator and establishing an Infrastructure Australia Board as a separate entity under legislation, with the board members appointed by the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development in consultation with the Prime Minister;
improving reporting arrangements, with the board reporting to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development; and
establishing a Chief Executive Officer position that will be appointed by and report to the board, and would be responsible for delivering Infrastructure Australia's functions including managing its resources and appointing staff as appropriate.
Improvement in the quality and transparency of advice is expected to assist government in its investment decision making, ensuring funding is directed to projects that return the greatest productivity improvement.
In respect of the board, the breadth of skills and experiences of the board members will be the same as is currently the case for the Infrastructure Australia council and the existing council members. They will also be considered for reappointment to the board.
In addition, the board will be required to produce an annual report to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, which will be made available to the Council of Australian Governments. The report will detail Infrastructure Australia's achievements; report on progress against its deliverables and its findings in respect to its policy reform analysis; and set out the forward work program.
This bill also refines and clarifies the functions of Infrastructure Australia thereby better enabling the organisation to focus its resources to delivering the government's reform program in the time frames required and in a manner that will achieve the desired outcome.
The government's proposed changes to enhance Infrastructure Australia's existing functions include:
(a) conducting evidence based audits of Australia's current infrastructure asset base, in collaboration with the state and territory governments, which would be revised every five years;
(b) developing in 2014 a 15-year infrastructure plan for Australia, with this plan being revised every five years:
(i) the plan is to clearly specify infrastructure priorities at national and state levels, based on rigorous and transparent assessment;
(ii) the plan is to include clearly defined service standards for project delivery, identify short- and long-term productivity gains as well as any complementary projects required to maximise productivity gains;
(iii) the plan will recommend infrastructure projects on the basis of a transparent and rigorous cost-benefit assessment of their viability;
(iv) a project pipeline should clearly articulate a time frame in which projects will be brought to market commencing with those projects of highest productivity value;
(v) this work is to be developed in close consultation with state and territory governments, but should not solely rely on submissions from state and territory governments and third parties;
(c) review all projects seeking Commonwealth funding worth more than $100 million (including transport, water, telecommunications, energy, health and education sectors and excluding defence projects) and publish the reasons for its decisions.
Infrastructure Australia, in undertaking its functions, will be required to take into account broader economic considerations such as environmental sustainability and safety issues.
The recommended changes to Infrastructure Australia's governance structure and the additional functions will be met from within the existing appropriation for Infrastructure Australia.
Furthermore, as the proposed amendments to the governance structure of Infrastructure Australia are mechanical in nature, there are no regulatory or financial impacts on business and the non-for-profit sectors.
In terms of consultation, the government has consulted with Commonwealth government agencies, Infrastructure Australia, key industry infrastructure stakeholders and state jurisdictions over the last 12 months.
Changing Infrastructure Australia's governance structure by abolishing the infrastructure coordinator role within the legislation with a chief executive officer position, will require a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITA Act).
Under the ITA Act, the infrastructure coordinator is responsible for designating infrastructure projects eligible for the tax loss incentive. The bill provides for a suitable person or persons to be determined by the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in consultation with the relevant Treasury Portfolio minister, to fulfil this role.
This change will need to occur simultaneously with amendments to the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to ensure the function maintains its authority. The proposed consequential changes have been developed in consultation with the Treasurer, the Hon. Joe Hockey MP, who has legislative responsibility with the ITA Act.
In summary, the government is committed to broadening the current infrastructure reform agenda in collaboration with jurisdictions and industry to improve productivity and drive economic growth.
The government's infrastructure reforms aimed at reducing duplication, streamlining approval processes, improving planning and coordination across all levels of government and stimulating investment are critical in a fiscally challenged environment so that we can maximise our current resources and thereby minimise the pressure to rely entirely on investment as a means to raise productivity.
The reform to Infrastructure Australia is a key component of this broader reform package and is critical in better enabling it to deliver quality independent advice. The government will rely on this advice when considering priority projects, which is important to improving productivity.
The government will remain focused on delivering critical infrastructure, ensuring we are getting value for money for our investments and will be dedicated to embracing and increasing innovation in project delivery.
The government is committed to building the infrastructure of the 21st century and these reforms to Infrastructure Australia will help us in achievement of this goal.
The government will lead the way, but we recognise that to drive this change, we must be in partnership with the construction and investment communities. This co-investment of not only capital, but shared will and vision, will be the basis for building our nation and improving the living standards of our people.
Debate adjourned.
Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Joyce.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (09:14): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Productive and prosperous rural industries are a pillar of the Australian economy and a key part of our national identity. Continuous innovation underpinned by research is essential to maintaining competitive and profitable industries and maintaining the rural communities that depend on them,
To provide research and development services which are vital to keeping primary producers in business, the rural R&D corporations were established under the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989. Since then they have supported research and development to keep rural industries profitable and sustainable.
There are 15 R&D corporations, five statutory and 10 industry-owned, supporting a wide range of rural industries. Through them, producers collectively invest in research, development and extension. Government helps by setting up and collecting a levy if an industry gets together and asks for a levy. After recovering costs, the government pays the levy funds to the relevant corporation. To encourage producers to invest in their own productivity the government matches the corporation's eligible R&D, research and development spending up to legislated limits.
The research and development corporation partnership of government and industry has stood the test of time, but improvements can be made. With a changing environment, improvements need to be made. This bill will enhance the existing R&D corporation model to provide better services and ensure that the model works for primary producers into the future.
Australia's success in agriculture is built on research and development.
In the early days, our industries innovated by necessity. Early pioneers brought crop varieties to Australia that were developed for the European climate and soils. Most of these performed poorly in Australian conditions. They had to be adapted.
In the late 1800s, Farrer—who has an agricultural high school in my area named after him—led the revolution to breed varieties for the Australian climate, which transformed our wheat industry. At the same time, Richard and Clarence Smith developed the stump jump plough to deal with the tough Australian soils and resilient mallee scrub.
By the 1970s our research and development expanded from productivity-focused innovations to include innovations to meet the needs of the consumer. This was epitomised by the development of the Pink Lady apple by John Cripps from Western Australia.
More recently we have made innovations in electronics and computerisation with advances like robotic dairies and satellite technology, keeping the farmers at the cutting edge.
For the future, the prospects are very exciting. Research and development is providing advantages in precision farming to minimise soil disturbance and compaction and cut chemical and fertiliser use to what plants actually need. During my previous time in St George, all the time we were in contact with further advances in the cotton industry by reason of research and development. We are seeing the potential to use drones to manage weeds and pests. We are breeding plants and animals to develop taste attributes that markets require and to tackle specific health issues such as overcoming the increasing emergence of allergies.
The national interest demands a healthy agricultural sector. Rural industries are engaged with, and firmly support, our R&D corporation model. This model is the envy of other agricultural nations. It has a strong track record. Over recent decades Australia's rural productivity has increased at twice the rate of other Australian industries and rural R&D has been a major contributor to this. In the absence of productivity growth over the last 60 years it has been estimated that the gross value of production of the Australian agricultural sector would be approximately $12 billion per annum rather than the current more than $40 billion.
Research, development and extension have a fundamental role in preparing Australian rural industries for the future.
There are many challenges facing our rural industries. These include the effect of the high Australian dollar, a variable climate and strong competition in the global marketplace. There are big opportunities too, such as a growing world population to feed and increasing demand for our agricultural exports especially in Asia. Australia has a strong capacity to produce food that is tailored to the needs of new markets.
While our system for research and development is world class we cannot be complacent. The R&D corporation model must be updated to help producers make the most of opportunities and meet challenges as they arise. This, in turn, will help reinforce our food security and keep agriculture profitable and sustainable.
In 2011, the Productivity Commission and the Rural Research and Development Council reported on the rural research, development and extension system in Australia. Both the Productivity Commission and the council acknowledged the strong foundations of the existing system. Both recommended improvements to the system.
Ten consultation meetings were held in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Canberra for industry and other stakeholders to give feedback on the recommendations. Since then there has been ongoing consultation with the R&D corporations and industry including an opportunity for corporations and industry representative bodies to comment on an exposure draft of all three bills.
This bill and its companion bills, the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013, will commence concurrently.
Marketing activities
Nine of the industry-owned R&D corporations can already carry out collective marketing services for the benefit of their industry. This bill will give the five statutory R&D corporations the same ability to provide marketing services provided that producers propose a marketing levy, there is demonstrated industry support and the government agrees to collect it. Marketing services will not attract government matching funding, which is only for research, development and extension services.
Some industries are keen to allow statutory R&D corporations to undertake marketing to promote their produce. The prawn industry has already started discussions in the sector about the potential benefits of the marketing levy. There are well-established, clear and transparent processes to guide industry bodies through the consensus-building steps needed for a levy proposal.
Enabling statutory R&D corporations to carry out collective marketing will allow primary industries to tell consumers about their products' safety, nutritional and other production values.
Matching voluntary contributions
Primary producers and the government know that our R&D model is sound, creating a healthy return for the investment made. As a result, some businesses in the rural sector are willing and able to make extra voluntary payments to the R&D corporations.
Currently some corporations receive government matching funding for voluntary contributions to R&D. The bill will make the model fairer by allowing the extension of the arrangements to all the R&D corporations. Overall matching funding will still be limited by a cap on industries' gross value of production. This change may allow the corporations to maximise the R&D they fund by strategically using voluntary contributions to top up R&D spending. Matching voluntary contributions for R&D may also encourage supply chain partners to work with an industry on issues of common interest.
Funding agreements
Funding agreements were brought in by the then minister, the Hon. John Anderson, in 1998, and have been used since to agree governance and performance matters with the industry owned R&D corporations. This bill extends funding agreements to the Commonwealth's relationship with the statutory R&D corporations. Funding agreements will create a flexible mechanism, which can be easily altered if the needs of the parties change.
Funding agreements will be used to drive transparency and accountability. The agreements will be tabled in parliament and contain requirements relating to corporate governance and performance. These agreements will also allow the government to provide guidance to the corporations regarding the research priorities and needs of the broader Australian agricultural community. The bill allows until 1 July 2015 for the statutory R&D corporations and government to enter into funding agreements.
Appointment process for statutory R&D c orporation boards
Current procedures for appointing directors to statutory R&D corporation boards have proved expensive and time consuming, diverting resources from the corporations' core function—providing R&D, research and development, for their industries. Amendments in the bill will streamline the selection process. Selection committees will be limited to five members and the committee itself will be established for up to three years. This is designed to cut the cost of establishing a new committee for each selection process. In addition, the selection committee will create a 'reserve list' of suitable candidates that the minister can use to fill unplanned board vacancies for 12 months. If a candidate with the necessary skills is not available from the list, the process must begin again.
The presiding member must have regard to equity and diversity when recommending members for the selection committee of a statutory R&D corporation. Similarly, the selection committee must do the same when recommending candidates for the board of a statutory R&D corporation. Diversity of skills and background can broaden and enhance the board's skill base to ensure an effective statutory R&D corporation board.
Fisheries research and development
The Fisheries R&D Corporation receives most of its funding through the Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The farmed prawn industry is the only individual fishery with a statutory R&D levy.
The bill creates a new class of fisheries R&D levy that can be matched by the government without having to form part of a jurisdiction's contribution. If a fisheries industry requests a new statutory levy, the amendments will allow the levy to be collected and matched by the government up to a cap specific to that fisheries sector.
Each separately levied fishery will be subject to existing eligibility rules for matching funding. In effect, the fisheries sectors which so choose, will be able to invest in specific R&D and marketing by proposing a levy for that purpose.
Minor amendments
To cut red tape, this bill provides that statutory R&D corporations will no longer have to seek ministerial approval for their annual operating plans. This has become a burden for both the corporations and the government. The minister will oversee each corporation's strategy rather than its day-to-day management. Annual operating plans will still be required, but ministerial approval will not.
Minor amendments will remove redundant parts of the legislation. For example, energy is no longer part of the Agriculture portfolio, so all references to 'energy' will be removed from the act. References in the act to R&D councils and R&D funds are out of date and will be removed, making the act easier to understand and administer.
Other minor amendments encourage equal and consistent treatment of R&D corporations, including standardising requirements to comply with ministerial directions and standardising delegation powers. 'Scientific and technical capacity building' will be added to the objects of the act.
Conclusion
The changes in this bill will make R&D corporations more adaptable and better able to deal with the new realities faced by Australian primary producers. The way R&D corporations are run will be streamlined, promoting certainty and consistency for levy payers and other stakeholders. We will keep a strong focus on transparency, effectiveness and accountability to producers and the government. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Joyce.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (09:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is part of a package of bills streamlining rural research and development legislation to ensure it remains responsive and adapted to industry and national needs. It will commence concurrently with the other bills in the package, the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013.
The Australian agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries have asked government to impose levies to allow producers to collaboratively fund essential industry services. These include conducting research and development, extension and in some cases marketing, through the 15 R&D corporations. Levy rates are set in regulations, but cannot exceed a maximum rate that is set in the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999.
This bill removes maximum research, development and marketing levy rates from the act. The bill provides that the effective levy rates, set by regulations, must be the subject of a recommendation from relevant industry bodies, who must in turn consult with levy payers. The bill provides that the regulations will not be able to set a levy rate higher than the highest rate recommended by industry. This will safeguard against arbitrary levy increases by government.
New consultation requirements in the bill provide greater detail and consistency regarding who must be consulted when setting rates, and how to consult levy payers if there is no declared representative body.
If an industry wishes to increase a levy rate above the legislated maximum, in response to a changing market or seasonal conditions, it can be a time-consuming and costly process. The amendments will allow producers to respond more quickly to changing needs or conditions, by cutting the time between a rate increase proposal and the change coming into effect. Removing the need to amend the act will reduce this red tape and streamline the process.
In 2011 the Productivity Commission recommended the removal of maximum levy rates following a review of the R&D corporation model. Industry representative bodies, other stakeholders and the R&D corporations were consulted on the changes during and after the review. There is broad support for the removal of maximum rates.
Conclusion
This bill encourages primary industries to control their investment in R&D, extension and marketing. The levy-setting process will be easier and more responsive to industry needs. Robust consultation and consensus requirements ensure that levy setting remains in the hands of industry itself. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Joyce.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (09:30): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is part of a package of bills, referred to in the previous second reading speech. It will commence concurrently with the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013.
Like the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013, this bill removes maximum research, development and marketing charge rates from the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999. The act imposes charges on agricultural commodities for export or import, whereas the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 imposes levies on agricultural commodities sold domestically.
The bill provides that relevant industry bodies must, in consultation with charge payers, recommend the charge rates to be set by the regulations. The bill provides that the regulations will not be able to set a charge rate exceeding the highest rate recommended by industry. This will safeguard charge payers against arbitrary charge increases by government.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Cash Bidding) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ian Macfarlane.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Industry) (09:32): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia's exploration and mining success is underpinned by its:
highly prospective geology,
quality precompetitive geoscience data,
a stable investment environment, and
established regulatory frameworks.
Each year the Australian government releases offshore exploration acreage for competitive bidding by prospective explorers. Release areas are accompanied by an extensive package of precompetitive geoscience data—this information is prepared by Australia's national geoscience agency, Geoscience Australia, which I have to say is amongst the best, if not the best, in the world.
The areas released are selected to offer the global petroleum exploration industry a variety of investment opportunities.
This regular release of acreage provides Australia with a 'pipeline' of exploration investment opportunities—an essential component of ensuring Australia retains its attractiveness as a premier investment destination for the oil and gas industry.
Currently, Australia's offshore petroleum acreage is allocated through a competitive work-bidding system—essentially a tender system. Under this system the right to explore is awarded to those who will undertake the most comprehensive program of exploration work.
This system has served and will continue to serve Australia's interests for frontier areas and basins where the geology is less understood.
While the act provides the authority for offshore petroleum exploration permits to be offered using a cash-bidding system from 2014, the government will implement cash bidding as an additional method for exploration permit allocations.
Cash bidding will be used for those areas that are mature in exploration terms, or are known to contain petroleum accumulations.
Cash bidding in these areas is intended to prevent overexploration where none or little may be required. It also supports the government's policy of enabling the earliest commercialisation of our resources.
By introducing cash bidding, the government will ensure that the Australian community receives an up-front share of the economic benefit derived from having the exclusive right to explore for petroleum in Australia's offshore areas.
Offshore petroleum exploration permits do not, of themselves, authorise petroleum exploration activities. Rather an exploration permit grants the titleholder the exclusive right, in the area for which the permit is granted, to apply for permission to undertake exploration activities that are judged by environmental and other regulators to comply with the law.
An extensive review of the cash-bidding process, and consideration of preferred options, identified several opportunities to improve the current legislation.
To this end the bill implements a number of important measures that are aimed at improving efficiency of the allocation and the integrity of administrative processes, including:
enabling a reserve price to be set in advance of bids being received. This will ensure the government does not sell the right to explore below its value and secures an appropriate and adequate return to the Australian community.
requiring prequalification of bidders to ensure that potential explorers have the requisite technical and financial capacity to undertake exploration in an offshore area.
encouraging serious and genuine bidding through the requirement to pay a 10 per cent deposit when a cash bid is placed. This deposit is forfeited if the offer of a permit is subsequently refused.
specifying a non-discretionary tie-breaker mechanism which comes into effect in the event that two or more cash bids are equal.
Once fully implemented, these necessary key features will optimise the existing cash-bidding system provided for in the act. They will create a more streamlined and efficient allocation of exploration permits, which is consistent with the government's commitment to ensuring Australia is an attractive investment destination.
I note that the opposition has previously supported the introduction of cash bidding to encourage more efficient allocation of Australia's offshore resources. This bill is central to achieving that objective.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ian Macfarlane.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Industry) (09:37): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government recently announced the inclusion of cash bidding in the 2014 offshore exploration acreage release.
This additional method of exploration permit allocation in mature areas or those known to contain petroleum accumulations is intended to prevent over-exploration where none or little may be required, and ensure that the release of these areas continues to be equitable, economic and efficient.
To enable this I have introduced some amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to go some way towards optimisation of the cash bidding system.
The National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator performs an important function in Australia's offshore petroleum regulatory regime through assisting and advising the joint authority—and me as the responsible Commonwealth minister—on the award of titles as well as managing the ongoing titles administration function including keeping registers of titles and data and information management.
This bill consequently amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act (Regulatory Levies) 2003 to allow the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator to cost recover for its annual titles administration activities in relation to cash-bid petroleum exploration permits.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Andrews.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Social Services) (09:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will implement the first stage of the government's commitment, foreshadowed during the 2013 election campaign, to adopt a different approach to addressing problem gambling.
The bill will also implement several measures affecting family and parental payments, the closed pension bonus scheme, the rules for receiving certain payments overseas, and certain student entitlements.
Encouraging responsible gambling
This government believes in meaningful and measurable support for problem gamblers. Although most people who gamble do so responsibly, gambling is a major problem for some Australians, and effective measures are needed to help these people.
The amendments in this bill represent the government's first step in reducing bureaucracy and the duplication of functions between the Australian government and the state and territory governments in this important area.
This bill will repeal the position and functions of the national gambling regulator, along with those provisions relating to the supervisory and gaming machine regulation levies, the automatic teller machine withdrawal limit, dynamic warnings, the trial on mandatory precommitment, and matters for Productivity Commission review.
The bill will also amend the precommitment and gaming machine capability provisions to express clearly the government's commitment to the development and implementation of these measures in the near future, informed fully by consultations with industry, state and territory governments, and other stakeholders.
Continuing income management as part of Cape York Welfare Reform
Cape York Welfare Reform is a partnership between the Australian government, the Queensland government and the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. It aims to restore local Indigenous authority, rebuild social norms, encourage positive behaviours, and improve economic and living conditions in the participating communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge.
Since Cape York Welfare Reform began in July 2008, the participating communities have seen improvements in school attendance, parental responsibility and restoration of local Indigenous authority.
This bill will continue income management as a key element of Cape York Welfare Reform, as part of a two-year continuation of the initiative until 31 December 2015.
Family tax benefit and eligibility rules
From 1 January 2014, family tax benefit part A will be paid to families only up to the end of the calendar year in which their teenager is completing school.
Youth allowance, with its 'learn or earn' provisions that require young people to participate in work, job search, study or training, will continue to be available as the more appropriate payment to help young people transition from school into work or post-secondary study. Exemptions will continue to apply for young people who cannot work or study due to physical, psychiatric, intellectual or learning disability.
Period of Australian working life residence
A further measure in the bill will require age pensioners, and other pensioners with unlimited portability, to have been Australian residents for 35 years during their working life (in place of the current 25-year requirement) to receive their full means tested pension if they choose to retire overseas or travel overseas for longer than 26 weeks. Pensioners will also be paid on their own individual working life residence rather than that of their partner or former partner.
The 25-year requirement has been significantly more generous than the pension rules of other OECD countries, which generally require 35 to 45 years of pension contributions to receive a full pension. Australia's social security system differs markedly from the contributory systems that operate overseas in that payments are made from general tax revenue and are based on the concepts of residence and need. Pensioners with less than 35 years' Australian working life residence will be paid at a proportionally reduced rate. This amendment will apply to pensioners who leave Australia on or after 1 January 2014 and to pensions granted under most social security agreements from that date.
Pensioners who are living overseas immediately before 1 January 2014 will continue to be paid under the previous rules unless they return to Australia for longer than 26 weeks and leave again, after which the new rules will apply.
Interest charge
The bill will allow for an interest charge to be applied to certain debts incurred by recipients of Austudy payment, fares allowance, youth allowance for full-time students and apprentices, and ABSTUDY living allowance. The interest charge will only be applied where the debtor does not have or is not honouring an acceptable repayment arrangement. Debtors who are already making repayments, or who come to a repayment agreement with the Department of Human Services following implementation of this measure, will not have the interest charged.
The rate of the interest charge will be based upon on the 90-day bank accepted bill rate, plus an additional seven per cent, as is currently applied by the Australian Taxation Office for tax debts under the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Over the last four years, this rate has averaged 11.07 per cent, and currently stands at 9.6 per cent.
Student start-up loans
From 1 January 2014, the bill replaces the current student start-up scholarship with an income-contingent loan, the student start-up loan. There will be a limit of two loans a year of $1,025 each (indexed from 2017). The loans will be available on a voluntary basis, and will be repayable under similar arrangements to Higher Education Loan Program debts. Students will only be required to begin repaying their start-up loan after their Higher Education Loan Program debt has been repaid.
Paid parental leave
To ease administrative burdens on business, the Paid Parental Leave legislation will be amended to remove the requirement for employers to provide government funded parental leave pay to their eligible long-term employees.
From 1 March 2014, employees will be paid directly by the Department of Human Services, unless an employer opts in to provide parental leave pay to its employees and an employee agrees for their employer to pay them.
Pension bonus scheme
From 1 March 2014, the bill will end late registrations for the closed Pension Bonus Scheme. The Pension Bonus Scheme provides a lump sum payment to people who are registered in the scheme and qualified for the age pension, or the equivalent Veterans' Affairs service pension or income support supplement, but who choose to defer their pension and remain in the workforce.
The scheme was closed in 2009, although eligible people who were not registered in the scheme at the time of its closure have still been able to backdate their registration in the scheme if they qualified for the relevant pension before 20 September 2009, but have deferred its receipt and kept working. The work bonus was introduced in 2009 as a different approach to encouraging older Australians to continue working.
Ending late registrations for the Pension Bonus Scheme will simplify and support the flexibility of our substantial system of seniors support. Eligible people have had four years to backdate their registration, and will still have until 1 March 2014 to register in the scheme.
Indexation
This bill will extend the indexation pauses on certain higher income limits for a further three years until 30 June 2017. This means that:
the family tax benefit part B primary earner income limit and the parental leave pay and dad and partner pay individual income limits will each remain at $150,000; and
the current higher income free area for family tax benefit part A also remains at the current level set depending on the number and ages of the family's children—for example, the income cut-off for a family with two children aged under 13 will remain at around $113,000.
In addition, the annual end-of-year family tax benefit supplements will remain at current levels for the next three years—$726 a child for part A and $354 a family for part B.
The bill will also set the annual child care rebate limit at $7,500 for three income years starting from 1 July 2014, with the first indexation of this amount occurring on 1 July 2017. As a result, an individual will be able to receive up to the maximum amount of $7,500 per child per financial year for out-of-pocket child care costs for those three income years.
Changes to the rules for receiving payments overseas
From 1 July 2014, the length of time that families can be temporarily overseas and continue to receive family and parental payments will reduce from three years to 56 weeks.
In some circumstances, (such as where certain Australian Defence Force and Australian Federal Police personnel are deployed overseas) a person will continue to be eligible for family and parental leave payments for up to three years while temporarily absent from Australia.
Extending the deeming rules to account-based income streams
The bill will align the income test treatment of account based superannuation income streams, for products assessed from 1 January 2015, with the deemed income rules applying to other financial assets. Account based income streams held by income support recipients immediately before 1 January 2015 will continue to be assessed under the previous rules unless recipients choose to change to a product that is assessed under the new rules.
Other amendments
Other minor amendments in the bill include improving the administration of debt recovery under the Student Financial Supplement Scheme, clarifying the provisions relating to the time period for lodging tax returns for family assistance purposes, and ensuring that funding under the National Disability Insurance Scheme paid into a person's account, which is set up for the purpose of managing the funding for supports for a participant's plan, cannot be garnisheed for debt recovery purposes.
I commend the bill of the House.
Debate adjourned.
Australian Civilian Corps Amendment Bill 2013
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:52): I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Prime Minister announced on 18 September 2013 that he would recommend to the Governor-General that the Australian Agency for International Development, AusAID, be integrated into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT.
The abolition of AusAID as an Executive Agency on 1 November 2013 marked a significant milestone for Australia's international engagement and a new era in diplomacy. DFAT is now responsible for development policy and the delivery of Australia's aid program. This major change will see the alignment of Australia's foreign, trade and development policies and programs.
Integration of AusAID with DFAT will promote Australia's national interests, by contributing to international economic growth and poverty reduction, and support Australia's foreign and trade policy.
This machinery of government change means that certain legislation will need to be updated to substitute references to AusAID and specific positions in AusAID with references to DFAT and positions in DFAT.
The Australian Civilian Corps Act 2011, and the regulations and legislative instruments made pursuant to that Act, are examples of such legislation.
The Australian Civilian Corps Act 2011 establishes the Australian Civilian Corps and sets out the legal framework for the employment and management of Australian Civilian Corps employees.
The Director-General of AusAID was responsible for the management of the Australian Civilian Corps. The Director-General of AusAID had a range of specific functions and powers under the act including, on behalf of the Commonwealth, all the rights, duties and powers in respect of Australian Civilian Corps employees.
The bill amends the act in two main ways.
First, it transfers the powers and functions of the Director-General of AusAID under the act to the Secretary of DFAT.
Second, it substitutes other references to AusAID and the Director-General of AusAID with DFAT and the Secretary of DFAT, respectively.
The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Australian Civilian Corps Regulations 2011, the Prime Minister's Australian Civilian Corps Directions 2012 and the Director-General's Australian Civilian Corps Directions 2011.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Meeting
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education and Leader of the House) (09:05): I move:
That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the Selection Committee:
(a) meeting on or after Thursday 21 November 2013, if necessary by teleconference, to determine the order of consideration of matters and the times allotted for debate on each item and for each Member speaking, for private Members' business and committee and delegation business, for Monday 2 December 2013;
(b) communicating its determinations to all Members of the House prior to that Monday; and
(c) reporting its determinations to the House following prayers on Monday 2 December 2013;
(2) the Selection Committee's determinations being shown in the Notice Paper for that Monday under 'Business Accorded Priority' for the House and Federation Chamber; and
(3) in the absence of a fully constituted Selection Committee, that the arrangements for private Members' business for Monday 2 December 2013 provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this resolution be determined by the Speaker, Chief Government Whip and Chief Opposition Whip.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (09:56): Yesterday, before the business of the House caused me to pause my remarks on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013, I was talking about the downside of the mining tax with regard to what is happening in Western Australia. Out on the streets of Cowan and on the streets of Perth, the opportunities for those in the mining sector and the downstream benefits of the sector have been felt for some time. There has been a lot of talk about what has happened with the mining tax and the administrative and red-tape burdens that it has imposed upon so many of the miners. Coupled with the effects of the carbon tax, it has meant that more and more people, including many of the big employers in Western Australia, have been talking of sovereign risk. I have heard it from those in the mining sector who are increasingly looking for opportunities to invest and progress business in Canada and in Africa—and none of that needed to be the case. The people of Western Australia understood this very clearly, and we made it very clear in the election campaign that one of the key planks of our platform was the repeal of the mining tax. So there is no doubt that I endorse this bill to get rid of the mining tax so that we can start taking the brakes off one of the most successful industries in this country.
As I said before, we are talking about big employers, people who provide the livelihoods of people on the streets of Perth and so many other places around this country. Downstream benefits flow into spending in shops, and we should not underrate that at all. That is why it is important that we get rid of this mining tax. There is another element to this as well. This is an important move not just to take the handbrake off the mining tax but also to take away some of the outrageous extra spending that was attached to this tax. As we know, some $400 million has been raised across the life of the various iterations, the suggestions, the policies of this mining tax over the last five years—billions of dollars have been talked about—but of course that has not eventuated. It has been just another one of the stuff-ups of the former government over there.
But what we do know is that back in 2007 when they took over, we were something like $60 billion in the black. The country was in solid shape. Now, according to the Australian Office of Financial Management, we are $292 billion in the red, and there are other bills which talk about the unfortunate need to have to raise the spending cap limit.
One of the reasons it is so important to get rid of this mining tax is that there was some $16.7 billion of spending that was attached across the forward estimates. Again, as I said, that was up against the $400 million that has been raised by it so far. The grand concept of the Labor Party and the former government was to shell out the cash, and they could not even get the tax right. They were hurting one of our most successful industries, imposing huge amounts of red tape on that industry, and then spending money that they did not have, which is eerily familiar across so many portfolio areas—in fact, it was almost the reason for the existence of the other side when they were in government.
I remember when we were doing debates on the mining tax when it was being introduced by the Labor Party, I made some comments at that time about the schoolkids bonus and in relation to that spending. I remember former minister Mr Combet had a big go at me for suggesting that some people out there would actually use the schoolkids bonus for non-educational outcomes.
Following the first payment of the schoolkids bonus, I talked to a number of my school principals, none of whom reported an increase in voluntary fees. That was always going to happen when you have something called the 'schoolkids bonus', which is no longer linked to educational outcomes; you might call it 'schoolkids' bonus but when it does not come down to the fact that there needs to be a receipt for a school uniform or for books or anything like that, obviously people are going to look to the first thing that they need after that. So it really had nothing to do with schools; it had everything to do with just another handout, and a handout from a team that was just living beyond its means.
As the Australian Office of Financial Management says, that is why we approach $300 billion in debt now. There is a sense from the other side that you can just keep handing it out, just keep pushing it out there—whether it was trying to buy votes or trying to cover up the damage that the carbon tax was doing to the Australian economy and to the cost of living for individuals across this country, it was just a great way as far as they were concerned to mask problems. Some day, someone needs to pay.
The giving out of cash from the non-existent profits of the mining tax, the borrowing of money to hand out those payments of $800 or $400, depending on whether it was for secondary school or primary school, was something that one day someone was going to have to pay for. So now the rubber is hitting the road, someone needs to draw a line in the sand and say this country cannot afford this sort of stuff. It would be great if we could just hand out cash all the time and still keep the country in the black. It would be fabulous. We would all like that. But the reality is that it is just not like that and it is not going to be like that for a very long time.
We need to remember how long it took John Howard, Peter Costello and the careful management of the former Howard government to get things back in the black. It was not going to be overnight. Until that time, until this country starts living within its means again, there is going to have to be a downside to that. The piper needs to be paid. And it is important that right now we pass this repeal bill, get this $13.4 billion off the budget sheet over the forward estimates, to try to improve the future for the kids—who might ostensibly be getting things like the schoolkids bonus but, as we know, there was very little actual benefit for educational outcomes as a result of these handouts. Parents might get it today or last year or earlier this year, but the reality is that someone is going to have to pay, and it will be the taxpayers of the future as we try and get this country back into the black. So I say it is about time we really started by sorting out this problem, getting rid of the mining tax and the expenditure that was associated with it, so that we can start getting this country back living within its means.
I appreciate the opportunity today to make some comments on this bill and I without doubt give my commendation of the bill to the House.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (10:06): Thank you, Deputy Speaker Mitchell. It is great to be in the House with you. I know we both had tough re-election campaigns. I think yours was a little tougher than mine. But it is good to have you back here; now there is at least one other car enthusiast in the House of Representatives.
The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 demonstrates and illustrates the nature of this government. It is a government of reaction and reactionary politics; not of caution, not of considered thinking, not of liberal thinking, not even of Conservative thinking. This is the party and the government of reactionary politics and it is led by a man who is this perfect political blend of Malcolm Fraser, Richard Nixon and BA Santamaria. That is the nature of this government. It must absolutely gall the two characters down here on the government benches that such a man leads the Liberal Party, because of his nature and because of the damage we see this bill will do to this country. This bill will reduce the taxation of big miners, of capital. It is a rich gift to powerful interests but it is a hit, a slug on battlers and on self-reliant entrepreneurs. It is an assault on family budgets and it is an assault on all of those outside the metropolitan mainstream, those in regional Australia.
The nature of this bill and of this economic construct reveals the essential character of this government. It is a very early sign that this government simply believes its return to the Treasury bench and the return to conservative rule will lead to some sort of economic confidence and that a tax cut for those who are already, let us face it, obscenely wealthy will lead to economic growth. Time will tell whether these naive beliefs will collide with economic reality.
This bill tells you a lot about the contrast between the Abbott government's character and the Australian character. The government's character is to back the big guy at the expense of the little fella. The Australian character is the complete antithesis of that. This is a party and a government of reaction that, given the choice between the boardroom or the shopping mall, will pick the narrow interests of boardrooms every time. And that will not do our nation a lick of good.
Early on, we can see the contents of this bill, beginning with superannuation, will affect battlers. We know that superannuation is not just an important mechanism for workers' retirement incomes but, as I said in previous speeches, an important mechanism to redistribute wealth at a time in workers' lives when they need it the most: in their retirement years. That is a critical aspect of the superannuation system. The other thing it does is add to our national savings.
So what does this bill do? It removes the low-income superannuation contribution, it increases taxes on one in three of Australia's lowest-paid workers and it cuts the super of millions of Australians earning up to $37,000 a year while boosting the super of those 16,000 people who have more than $2 million in their super balance. It in effect scraps the low-income superannuation contribution—up to $500 for those earning under $37,000 a year—that is currently paid into the accounts of taxpayers. That is a massive hit on Australian workers. It is a massive hit in particular on women. There will be 2.1 million women affected, most of those working part-time in industries like retail and hospitality.
This bill is a massive attack on battlers' incomes. They will not see it today or tomorrow. They will not even see it next week, but they will feel it decades from now, as our nation will feel it decades from now, when we see the combined effects of the abolition of the low-income superannuation contribution and the delay in increasing the super guarantee to 12 per cent, which will reduce our national savings by $53 billion by 2021-22. That will have a massive impact on our nation's economic wellbeing, on our ability to invest in our own country, on our ability to invest overseas and on our ability in particular to invest in infrastructure. On current projections, it will cost some $5 billion in infrastructure spending. So it will have a massive impact on battlers in the future; it is a king hit on their retirement incomes.
The schoolkids bonus is very important to family budgets. It is a payment of $410 per primary school student and $820 per high school student which is paid to 1.3 million Australian families starting from January next year. They would get this bonus but they will not get it because of this government's character, because of its priorities. Its priority is to give a tax cut to the top end of town while removing superannuation benefits and the schoolkids bonus for battlers.
Finally, we see the government's character in relation to the income support bonus. The income support bonus is a tax-free payment for over 50s on Newstart allowance. Anybody who has been out there doorknocking or talking to people knows that if you get made redundant or if you suffer unemployment in your 50s, it is extraordinarily hard to get back into the job market. I have met many people who have put out literally hundreds of applications only to be knocked back. It is not their skills or their work ethic or their fundamental decency; it is simply their age. That is a great blind spot, I think, with Australian employers. They are wasting a huge amount of economic and social capital. Often these workers are very good workers, so it is a terrible thing to get rid of that income support bonus. We all know that the rate of Newstart is far too low and we all know that causes massive poverty. To deny people, who have often worked all their lives and who have not made much of a call on the welfare system, this payment is an act of nastiness that reveals something about the character of this government.
We now come to the government's assault on entrepreneurs, on small business. We hear so much about small business from those opposite. They all have a business story way back when in the family. I know the next speaker probably came from small business stock. Indeed, my grandfather was a small businessmen so I know something about his battles with the bank during the recession of the 1960s caused by the Menzies government. We know that being in business is tough, so why would you make it any tougher? This bill does. This bill increases taxes on 2.7 million small businesses. They are going to get a nasty surprise, because they thought it was all going to be Shangri-la when the government came to power. A lot of them have very, very high expectations of you and when they find out that the taxes are being increased, that the loss carry-back scheme is being closed and that 110,000 businesses across the country are going to lose a tax break, they are going to be very, very disappointed indeed. Their expectations will be dashed and they will find their lives harder and that will have an impact on economic confidence, because we know small businesses are extraordinarily important, particularly in terms of employment.
We have got both the Ai Group and COSBOA against this legislation. We have got the Ai Group saying it will add to complexity and compliance costs for small businesses. It is extraordinary from a government that, supposedly, prides itself on helping small business. It tells us every day it is going to help small business, and here we find it assaulting their interests.
Lastly, we see them making life harder for those outside the metropolitan mainstream. I have an electorate which is the outer suburbs of Adelaide and country towns—one of which I grew up in—and I know how extraordinarily tough it is. You suffer the tyranny of distance. You feel it in just about every way, and the people out there are very self-reliant. They have to be. Those towns have to be, and we know that they do so much to add to the wealth of our country. So why would you make their lives harder?
Flagged in this bill and in the government's plans is the discontinuation of the Regional Infrastructure Fund and the RDA Fund. These funds were very important, particularly to electorates like mine. They helped fund the Balaklava water pipeline, which is going to trigger economic growth in that region; and fund the Barossa Bike Path, triggering that synergy between lifestyle, small business, tourism and the wine industry. We are seeing that terrible assault on regional Australia, and these are all traditional constituencies of this government. To take the bat to regional Australia, to take the bat to small business, is just extraordinary, particularly at a time when their expectations of the government are so high. We know they were never particularly forthright about their plans when they were in opposition.
Inherent in this bill is this idea that we can return to privilege, to genuflecting to the mining squattocracy who are sitting on the nation's wealth, monopolising its opportunities, celebrating themselves and giving each other golfer's claps about any sort of contribution that they might make. That is what we are going to go back to: the golfer's clap. I know the member for Higgins—she is part of the cheer squad; don't worry about that—is very, very against giving the car industry anything but she does not mind giving fairly big tax breaks to the miners. We will see that in her speech today and we will hear about how not much revenue has been raised—just $3 billion over the forward estimates; small change to those opposite. They do not care. What is it likely to be in the long term once commodity prices lift?
When you get right down to it, this is why this is a government of reaction. It is like the Fraser government; it is not like the Howard government. It is not like reforming governments, because what it is going to do is lower revenue and open up a tax loophole for those who are already deriving massive wealth and are not particularly good at distributing that wealth, sharing it or creating other opportunities in the economy.
It is a massive hit on our national savings, on super, and this is our only chance. We hear a lot about foreign ownership in this building but the only way to prevent foreign ownership, the only way to buy back your farm, is to have national savings and that is what superannuation does.
We have got a government that is essentially reactionary in its character and it insists on siding with those who have economic privilege at the moment over people who battle, who work. It does not matter whether they are small businessmen, wage earners or people out there in the regions. It is on the side of the boardroom. It tells you so much about this government. As I said, it is a strange combination of spin and market-tested lines—and we know where they come from: out of the focus groups.
You see all this stuff but, deep in its heart, it is led by a man who combines the politics of Malcolm Fraser, Richard Nixon and BA Santamaria. It is a pretty toxic mix in my opinion. In that sense, it is a government that is destined to disappoint, and this bill is essentially the beginning of that process. Once the rubber hits the road, those opposite will not be nearly so arrogant. Once the schoolkids bonus goes, those opposite will not be nearly so arrogant. Once small businesses lose their tax breaks, this government will not be nearly so cocksure. I think we will be able to mark the decline of the policy and political integrity of this government with this bill.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (10:21): I always enjoy listening to the contributions from the member for Wakefield. They are always very comic. I think they sometimes come from a parallel universe not known to the rest of us, but it is a great expression of how those on that side of the chamber simply do not get it. They simply do not get the fact that, if you spend more than you raise you create a black hole—that is the black hole of the previous government's creation and that is why I rise today to speak on the removal of the minerals resource rent tax and associated measures.
There is no better expression of class warfare and the creation of a black hole than the minerals resource rent tax that was brought in by the previous government. There is also no greater example of the dysfunction, chaos and lack of due process in the former government than that of the MRRT and its predecessor, the resource superprofits tax. Because of those two bills, we got to witness a tax that raised virtually no money; associated recurrent spending that significantly exceeded the revenue; the introduction for the first time in decades of the words 'Australia' and 'sovereign risk' in the one sentence; an industry dependent on long-term certainty having to constantly question what the next announcement out of government was going to be, thus hindering investment; and the ugly and bitter internal politics of the Labor Party. But, most importantly, we learnt a lesson on how not to conduct sensible economic policy.
There is an age-old tale of the emperor and his new suit. We are all aware of this fable and the lessons learnt. The MRRT was the tax that revealed the former Prime Minister and Treasurer to be the economic vandals that we knew them to be. Like the pub with no beer, the MRRT is the tax with virtually no revenue. Putting to one side that the RSPT was forecast to raise in the vicinity of $50 billion, the original prediction for the MRRT was that it would raise $26.5 billion over the forward estimates. This, however, was constantly downgraded at every opportunity by the government, not of course to the surprise of those on this side of the chamber, I might add.
Eventually it was revealed that the tax collected not $26.5 billion, not even $1 billion, but actually $340 million in its first year—significantly less than what had been predicted by the previous government. Meanwhile, it cost the Australian tax office $50 million to administer the tax. It raised $340 million, despite the billion dollar predictions, and cost the ATO $50 million to administer—talk about a policy that was not well thought through, talk about inefficiency in our tax system. And that is before you even get onto the compliance cost for companies that did not pay the tax. That is not to say that they do not pay tax; they do pay tax. They pay royalties, they pay company tax, they pay payroll tax, they pay a number of taxes. But the compliance cost for companies, for instance, like Fortescue was between $3 million and $5 million, even though they were not due to pay any money under the MRRT. You cannot say that that is sensible. You cannot say that is good for business. You cannot say that is good for the economy. You cannot say that is good for jobs.
Let me move on to the fact that the government projected that billions of dollars of revenue would be collected by the MRRT. It spent the money before such projections came to pass. In the infinite wisdom of the former government, they decided to spend big on money they had not collected. It is like buying a house in the hope of a Christmas bonus to pay for it but that Christmas bonus never comes. It is irresponsible and it is imprudent. The MRRT had $16 billion of recurrent spending associated with it over the forward estimates. That is $16 billion the former government did not have but spent anyway—a cruel hoax on the Australian people.
This will be one of the only cases in Australia's history where the removal of a tax will improve the budget bottom line to the tune of $13 billion. That is right: we are going to get rid of a tax and improve the budget bottom line, because the previous government was so incompetent that it did not bring in as much revenue as it was spending. These savings will be made through the removal of all of the associated spending measures outlined by the previous government and it is done because we need to be responsible in government.
I want to move on to this notion of sovereign risk and how the MRRT was designed. The process of the MRRT was formulated and introduced with one announcement following another, one disaster following another. The first incarnation was of course, and we all remember it, the resource superprofits tax. It was announced overnight, without consultation and to the complete surprise of industry. This is completely consistent with the modus operandi of the previous government: make an announcement first, force it on industry and then, after legitimate protest, say that you will consult. This is no way to make public policy and it is no way to implement good public policy.
As a result of this 'announce first, ask questions later' process, sovereign risk was introduced back into Australia for the first time in decades. It had not been seen since the seventies and eighties where there was strong militancy in the unions that also forced bad policy decisions. It is not just us on this side of the chamber who say so. We saw reports on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. We heard from our business leaders that sovereign risk was undermining investment confidence. Let me quote from just two. AngloGold Ashanti CEO Mark Cutifani remarked that when he addresses his board of directors he advises:
We have Australia as one of the top sovereign risk countries in the world and places where government policy has demonstrated failure in terms of taxation policy and inconsistency in policy. And that is a real concern for me and our board.
Ivan Glassenberg, one of Australia's most successful businessmen, corroborated this by saying:
Australia does have its risk, yes. We saw the carbon tax, we saw the minerals resources tax. It is a First World country but is doing things that are making people cautious of investing, so Australia is becoming another country where you have to make sure that the rules are not going to change on you.
When we look to expand our operations we do our valuations, we put a certain tax on it and a certain royalty on the valuation and then you invest lots of capital in those countries and you are just never sure but you hope the rules don't change on you.
Australia did send a signal to the world we may just change the rules and it is like other countries.
We heard from these two captains of industry, warning that the previous government, through their actions, were creating Australia as a sovereign risk destination and therefore not a destination for investment.
In its irresponsible, reckless and unpredictable approach to government, the previous government set a very low standard. This coalition government will be very different. This coalition government will take a very different approach to policy. We will not announce first and ask questions later; we will ask questions first, develop policy through a methodical process and only then will we legislate. It is no wonder to me that the relationship between government and business had become so frayed under the previous government that we saw business confidence at such a low.
The change of government has brought with it an immediate boost to confidence because of our difference in approach. The message for industry is once again 'Australia is open for business', business that is based on proper and methodical processes, with no surprises and no sudden shocks.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the political strategy of the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, and the class warfare he engaged in in order to push this flawed tax. In my view the attack on individuals in the mining industry was one of the many low points of the previous parliament. The former Treasurer went as far as to say that mining interests were 'a threat to democracy'. The Treasurer, the very person who is meant to be trusted with the management of our economy, who is the conduit between government and the business community, waged a war on the very people who provide jobs, who create economic opportunity and who pay billions of dollars every year in tax.
What the former Treasurer failed to recognise in this class warfare attack is that every time he attacked a miner he attacked a fellow Australian. Listening to the former Treasurer's attacks we could be forgiven for thinking that no miner pays tax, that they do not pay royalties and that they do not pay company tax. And yet this is not the case. The more profitable they are, the more company tax they pay—and we do want them to be profitable, because if they are profitable they are growing our economy and they are employing Australians.
The former Treasurer would have been better advised to embrace the success of the mining industry, rather than seek to retard it. Even members of his own side—the former member for Hotham—begged the former government to cease its class warfare led by the former Treasurer. The member for Griffith, the former Prime Minister, on his return to the prime ministership was forced to declare the class war over before again engaging in this low and base tactic. Is it any wonder that, again, business confidence plummeted to new lows?
This bill, the repeal of the MRRT, is an example that Australia is again open for business; that the economic agenda is no longer being written by the unions and a government that is anti business. It is an opportunity to restore confidence in investment so that people are secure and the rules will not change overnight. We as a government want to develop and build our industries so that we can build further economic prosperity in this country.
The repeal of the MRRT and its associated measures is another way in which the coalition is restoring confidence to the business community and restoring confidence in our economy. When combined with the removal of the carbon tax, a genuine deregulation agenda, reduction of the corporate tax rate and a real motivation to balance the budget, the coalition will maximise the potential of the Australian economy.
The coalition will make tough decisions to get the economy back on track, but it is not a tough decision to get rid of the MRRT with its associated measures. It is an irresponsible tax, a tax that raised less than it spent. That is why I commend this bill to the House and ask that those opposite support us in restoring confidence again to Australia.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:35): I rise to oppose the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013. The last speaker spoke about associated measures with the MRRT. I notice that she and possibly other members of the coalition would be very reluctant to mention the fact that one of those measures is the Regional Infrastructure Fund. In talking about the economy and in talking about jobs, those opposite fail to understand that investment in long-term economic productivity of the nation requires investment in infrastructure—not rhetoric on infrastructure, but investment in infrastructure.
With the MRRT design in terms of the Regional Infrastructure Fund, that will be abolished—as has been confirmed in Senate estimates as well yesterday and the day before—the implications are that my former Department of Infrastructure and Transport has no idea which of these projects are going to continue and how they can possibly be funded.
It is not like the MRRT was created in a vacuum. Indeed, over a considerable period of time there was concern that during the former coalition government's time in office there were record revenues coming into government coffers but there were also record profits being made and that revenue was not being put back for the benefit of the community. Of course, the minerals are owned by all Australians under our Constitution and legal provisions. Therefore, it is eminently reasonable that Australians receive a share of the benefits of the mining boom. One commentator said this in 2011:
I share the disappointment about how few mining companies contribute to the areas they invade and how little state governments return of the massive royalty incomes they receive to the communities.
They were pretty harsh words, speaking about mining companies 'invading' local communities and not putting anything back. Was it a member of the Greens political party who said that?
Dr Leigh: Sounds like it.
Mr ALBANESE: It does sound reminiscent of some of the rhetoric of a Lee Rhiannon or a John Kaye, perhaps, in New South Wales. In fact, those comments were from the now Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party. That is what he had to say about that in a speech to the Transport Australia Summit in September 2011. In case you think that was an aberration, it actually was not. It was pretty consistent with a view being put by the now transport minister, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, member for Wide Bay and Leader of the National Party, but put by local communities as well. In June 2012 he said mining companies:
… could not expect to take away a region's resources without leaving something for the community … and had a responsibility to contribute to the specific infrastructure provided to meet their needs.
That is what he said, and yet he is supporting legislation before the parliament today from the coalition that would lead to not just the abolition of the MRRT but the abolition of the Regional Infrastructure Fund.
There have already been a number of allocations from the Regional Infrastructure Fund to important projects. There has been funding for planning. Firstly, for example, we had $1.6 million for the North Queensland Resources Supply Chain to operationalise MITEZ's 50-year plan. I was there for the launch of that plan in Mount Isa, with the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter. Infrastructure Australia regard the MITEZ plan—the Mount Isa to Townsville Economic Development Zone—as the most comprehensive economic development plan that has been developed for any region in Australia. It was developed with input of industry, local government and the community about how you improve the export potential out of Townsville port, how you have an integrated economic plan maximising employment opportunities in that North Queensland region and how you ensure sustainable jobs and sustainable economic growth over a longer period of time by getting that planning in place. That was funded through the RIF, as was the Central Queensland plan; the regional mining and infrastructure plans covering three geographical regions in South Australia—the Eyre Peninsula, Yorke Peninsula to Braemar and the Upper North; and the $450,000 grant for Infrastructure New South Wales, the body which used to be chaired by Nick Greiner, the former Premier of New South Wales, and RDA Hunter. All of that is seemingly being written off as worthless by the rhetoric of those opposite.
Then there are the projects: the Gladstone port access road in Queensland, being constructed and just about completed; the Blacksoil Interchange, in an area I visited on a number of occasions, that was advocated very strongly by Shayne Neumann; the Townsville Ring Road, one I am sure that the member for Herbert will think is a great project—
Mr Ewen Jones: Under John Howard—what a visionary!
Mr ALBANESE: The member for Herbert agrees with me. The nong opposite says it was funded under John Howard. It was funded under the Regional Infrastructure Fund—that was what funded it. It was—
Mr Ewen Jones: Peter Lindsay, a great local member. In 1996, mate!
Mr ALBANESE: funded by the Labor government—funded and built. Then there is the Peak Downs Highway, the upgrade of the intersection of the Bruce and Capricorn highways, the Mackay Ring Road study and the Scone level-crossing study. All of these works are very important projects. We put $400 million, separate from the MRRT, into the Regional Infrastructure Fund and then it was to be topped up as revenue came in. Of course, revenue was dependent upon when the superprofits kick in—a sensible way to deal with things, just as the model for the PRRT operated, and a sensible way forward. There are other projects as well that are now very much in doubt. In New South Wales there is the Bolivia Hill realignment of the New England Highway. We funded the study, firstly, then were to fund the hard infrastructure. This is a vital safety project in the electorate of New England.
I personally visited the site with Tony Windsor, the former member for New England, and I know that the current member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, supports this project because when the media were critical of this project he made it clear to me that he supported it as well. Well, the funding has to come from somewhere and it is reasonable, when the mining industry will benefit so much, that the industry is able to put something back for those local communities.
We allocated $45 million for the Scone Level Crossing project. It was championed by the member for Hunter. The Tourle Street Bridge was argued for and submitted for by the New South Wales government with joint fifty-fifty funding—$52 million from each level of government—and this was included in our budget in May this year and announced after that. The funding there was ready to go. We announced funding for climbing lanes and the Mount Ousley Road project at the Mount Ousley F6 Freeway junction—$42 million.
In Far North Queensland we agreed to provide up to $210 million to upgrade roads and essential community infrastructure in the Cape York region. It is very important to allow Indigenous communities to have access to employment opportunities in the mining sector. There were upgrades to the road between Yeppoon and Weipa and the road connecting Aurukun to the Peninsula Development Road to an all-weather standard. There were improvements to the Jardine River Crossing, the redevelopment of the Seisia wharf, improvements to the raw water pipeline from Bamaga to Seisia and small scale improvements to community drainage. I announced that funding. Again it was included in the budget in May and then announced up in Far North Queensland on Thursday, 13 June, by me, by Catherine King as the minister for regional services, and by Jan McLucas, the senator who represents Far North Queensland so well.
Those opposite talk about Northern Australia development. This is what it is about. This is about accessing jobs for Indigenous communities in particular in the resources sector in Far North Queensland, and that is one of the projects, when the now government released its funding proposals in the last 24 hours before election day in September, that was not included. That project was cut.
We have the Warrego Highway upgrades for $317 million—absolutely vital. There are further projects: the Yeppen South floodplain upgrade, costing some $236 million; the Mackay northern access upgrade for $64 million; the Mackay Ring Road, for which a further $50 million was allocated in the budget; and the Rockhampton northern access, stage 1, costing $132 million.
And there are projects in South Australia for the APY Lands where the Indigenous local population can benefit from mining and we can improve productivity also. Some $85 million will be ripped out, it would appear, by the incoming government. And of course there are projects in Perth including the Great Northern Highway, $307 million, from Muchea to Wubin, stage 2; the North West Coastal Highway, $152 million; and the Swan Valley Bypass, some $480 million.
This of course all comes on top of the Gateway WA project. This is a project that is absolutely vital, fixing up the largest-ever road projects in Perth or in Western Australia where the funding is primarily coming from the Commonwealth government. Construction is well underway. But you would think from the rhetoric of those opposite that it is their idea and that they are going to come up with this. Well, construction is underway. Jobs are being created. The first sod was turned some time ago. The contracts are issued and all the work has been done. Again, this was an initiative of the federal Labor government.
Those opposite need to do more than just talk about infrastructure; they need to actually fund infrastructure. With this small-minded proposal they are creating at the very best absolute uncertainty over these projects going ahead. That undermines confidence. It undermines the construction sector. It undermines employment and it undermines the economy. Here we have miners who not only say they can pay more, and who supported the legislation when it went through, while those opposite are saying, 'No, no, we do not actually want them to make a contribution.'
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (10:50): I do appreciate following the member for Grayndler. I do not think that anyone could doubt his passion for infrastructure in this country. The way you are speaking about those figures there is interesting—hundreds of millions of dollars, and tens of millions of dollars, again and again, adding up to billions, to be funded by a tax that has raised $400 million! The federal Labor government was not funding these things; they were being funded by further debt.
I rise to address this bill, the Mineral Resources Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2012, and I would like to start by saying thank you to the Australian Labor Party. In no small measure this bill that they introduced and brought to federal parliament was responsible for bringing me to this House.
I was selling real estate in Townsville. It was a Sunday morning. Everyone knew that the government was thinking about this tax but they had made statements that they would never do anything without consulting the industry. I was getting ready for my morning inspections—Sunday is a big day in the local real estate agency—and the phone was ringing hot. At about 11 o'clock we crossed live to a press conference with then Prime Minister Rudd and the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan, and they announced the mining superprofits tax.
My phone stopped ringing. The phones of everyone who was selling anything in Townsville and regional areas which had significant exposure to the mining industry stopped ringing. In a lot of cases, they have not started ringing again. The Treasurer and the then Prime Minister stood up there and announced the mining superprofits tax and said that they would do that, while everyone in Townsville was aghast.
I was a long way behind in the polls at that stage. Prime Minister Rudd had been riding so high in the polls, and we wondered how he could possibly be beaten. A lot of people were asked to run for the seat of Herbert and they all turned their noses up at it, saying that it could not be done. The Labor candidate for the seat was a high-profile person who had the personal backing of the then Prime Minister. So I put my hand up and I ran.
They introduced the mining superprofits tax. They had already walked away from the greatest moral challenge of our lives, the carbon tax, but I will have more to say about that in a little while. They had already walked away from that one. They brought in the mining superprofits tax. Soon after that, that Prime Minister was gone, dumped, executed, taken out the back and given a real flogging—replaced by another Prime Minister who said she was going to fix the mining tax.
The poor old member for Batman—remember the guy on that side?—Martin Ferguson, who truly represented the interests of the industry, had to stand up there and go to those meetings. He was kicked out. All the Treasury advisers were kicked out. The member for Grayndler said that there were mining companies that were prepared to pay this tax. I do not know whether that is entirely correct. What they were prepared to do was sign up to the tax that they designed. That is what they were prepared to do.
The bosses of BHP, Rio Tinto and Xstrata all got into a room, and they were faced with the omnipresence, the fearsome presence, of the Australian Treasurer. All the Treasury people had been kicked out, so this was a high-powered, high-level thing. And they brought in the mining resources rent tax. It would kick in at certain levels. You would be able to write off against it. You would be able to write off against infrastructure you had already done. You would be able to depreciate further. You would also be able to claim 100 per cent of your state royalties, but, if you did not qualify for the mining resources rent tax, you could bank them up until you were exposed to it, and then you would pay it off after that. The whole thing was that these people were prepared to sign up to this tax because they were never going to pay it. They were never going to pay it. Of course they were going to sign up to it!
The Treasurer came in. He walked in and sat down there, and he said: 'What do I have to do? You guys are putting ads on TV. We can't cope with that because we have our press conferences every 35 minutes, and they're just asking us questions about how this is going to make money and what is going to happen here.' So they folded like a bad hand: 'Anything! Whatever it takes!' They did this.
On 21 August, I was elected the member for Herbert, so in no small way were the actions of that government responsible for inflicting me on this House. I think there are a few people in this place now who would take the Labor Party to task over that.
What I would like to say about this tax and about the mining industry in general is that they do pay tax. They pay company tax. They pay payroll tax. They pay stamp duty. They pay car registrations and vehicle registrations. They pay petrol tax. They pay all those taxes. They are massive payers of tax. And yet the then government were prepared to sit there and smash them over the head, without warning, to bring this in. That was my first problem.
The second problem is that everywhere in the world has iron ore and coal—everywhere. It is about whether you can get it out and the cost for you to get it out. The previous CEO of BHP, Marius Kloppers, said that we used to be a low-cost, high-productivity country to deal with in mining. After Labor came to power, that was exactly reversed. We became a high-cost, low-productivity country in which to deal.
The other thing is that we are very close to our markets. The thing that Australia has always had in its history, as well as low cost and high productivity, is that we are close to our markets. We are close to China. But, with the advent of large ships that can take 400,000 tonnes, the cost of shipment from places in Africa and South America became very much negated.
Capital is a worldwide phenomenon. Capital is very flexible. Capital is very mobile. If you make it hard enough for people to do business in your country, they will take it elsewhere. I was astounded when I was speaking to the then shadow minister for foreign affairs, Julie Bishop, in relation to a conference she went to in Africa. She talked to mining executives who said they would rather deal with the country of Congo because at least what they said before the deal was done was what they stood by after the deal was signed. They could not say that about Australia. I find it the most deplorable situation that we could do that to our customers, because, at the end of the day, it is business. At the end of the day, we are in the business of running a country. We are in the business of sending out the message to our customers that what you say when you shake a man's hand on a deal, when you sign a contract, is what you stand for. And those things did not stand for anything.
There are of course implications of our removing this tax, and some of them are very, very uncomfortable, but we were also very, very clear with the people of Australia in the lead-up to the 7 September election as to what was going to happen. The then shadow Treasurer, now Treasurer, JB Hockey, has been very, very clear about this and the implications of a tax that has raised $400 million but where spending of over $16 billion has been locked in over the forward estimates. It is just not sustainable.
There are lots of people in my electorate who really like the schoolkids bonus. That they do not have to spend it on schoolkids and do not have to spend it on educational facilities or educational tools is immaterial. The former government changed it. What the coalition did was that you could claim school expenses on your tax with receipts that were paid, so you could make sure that it was. The schoolkids bonus was a bribe to the Australian people. It was almost a payoff for the carbon tax. But you cannot pay $16.7 billion worth of outgoings with $400 million worth of income. It is that simple.
There are some serious implications of this. We will have to withdraw the schoolkids bonus. We are very up-front about that. We are borrowing money to pay for it; that is the problem. I was talking to a parent in Townsville this morning. She asked me if we were going to get rid of the schoolkids bonus. I said, 'Yes, we will.' She said she was very disappointed. I said, 'Well, at the end of the day, you won't be paying for it, because, if we keep it going, your kids will be paying for it, because that's who has to pay it back.' We cannot continue to keep on borrowing and making our kids pay for what we want now. We cannot turn our kids into the purveyors of our lifestyles.
The low-income superannuation contribution has to go. But I can tell you, in relation to the low-income superannuation contribution, that over five years repealing the measure—the refunds of up to $500—will save the budget $2.7 billion over the forward estimates. But over the last five years Labor has increased taxes on superannuation by almost $9 billion and cut superannuation benefits to lower income earners by more than $3.3 billion. So, please, only the impotent are truly pure.
I would also like to talk about the repeal of the Regional Infrastructure Fund and the Regional Development Australia Fund. The coalition went to the election with a series of promises. We will honour our promises and keep our commitments, unlike the Labor government that had phantom funding. Some of the things they handed out on the RDA were absolutely scandalous. The coalition's $1 billion National Stronger Regions Fund is fully funded and accounted for as part of the budget. The funding is guaranteed.
We stand by our regions. You can tell by the number of Liberal and National Party people who were elected by the regions in Queensland that we own the regions because we stand for the regions, we mean business in the regions and we represent the regions. We do not make glib statements. We do not put in bits and pieces. We will do these things.
I want to say that putting in a $5 million road is not the development of northern Australia. The development of northern Australia is a serious project and it should be given the due deference that it needs. I stand by this commitment to repeal the minerals resource rent tax. It is important that we do go through with this. Labor should respect the mandate we have been given in relation to the minerals resource rent tax and the carbon tax. When Labor won the 2007 election on the basis that they would repeal Work Choices we stood aside and let that go through as a matter of course because that was the right thing to do. Labor should stand aside and let Australia get on with business and send the message that we are open for business and that we will do the right thing. I thank the House.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:02): The Labor opposition are determined to ensure that all Australians share in the profits of our rich non-renewable mineral resources—we were in government and we are in opposition. That is why we brought in the minerals resource rent tax. The Henry review released on 2 May 2010 included a discussion of the non-renewable resources and several recommendations for replacing existing resource-charging arrangements with a uniform resource rent tax imposed and administered by the Australian government. Lest anyone think that this is a new thing from Labor, we actually had a policy for this type of thing back in 1977. The Hawke Labor government introduced this in relation to the PRRT. That is what we did in relation to offshore petroleum. So we have had a longstanding commitment to this sort of economic policy. The Henry review commissioned independent research, which included a paper on non-renewable resource taxation prepared by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
The MRRT had a long and rather convoluted history, we accept that, but there was much community consultation. The Policy Transition Group was led by Don Argus and the then minister for natural resources Martin Ferguson. In fact, as we did in so many other areas, the MRRT was developed in partnership with business and industry, particularly BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, just to name a few in the resource sector. The MRRT was designed to apply to all new and existing iron ore and coal projects at a rate of 30 per cent. An extraction allowance of 25 per cent reduced the effective rate of the MRRT to 22.5 per cent for projects with greater than $75 million per annum income.
The MRRT was about superprofits. It was about making sure that we as a country extracted our fair share of the wealth of all Australians owned by Australians for the benefit of Australia. It resulted in an effective company tax cut provided this year, a new tax break for up to 2.7 million small businesses from 1 July 2012 and investments in all regions through the Regional Infrastructure Fund and the Regional Development Australia Fund. We did not discriminate; we provided assistance through every community and every council in the country.
The coalition's own fiscal budget impact statement that they released a couple of days before the election indicated that the MRRT would raise $3.7 billion over the forward estimates. The coalition cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that the MRRT is not working because it is making no revenue while at the same time say it is killing the mining industry, as we have heard on many occasions this morning and elsewhere. There is a certain degree of inconsistency between their positions in that regard.
The MRRT made a big difference and would make a big difference in the mining states of WA and Queensland. I noticed that the member for Grayndler mentioned the Blacksoil Interchange in my electorate, which was funded from the Regional Infrastructure Fund. The Blacksoil Interchange is the most notorious intersection in South-East Queensland. It was at the top of the list of infrastructure and road projects for the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors. We put $54 million into that project and the previous state Labor government committed $16 million. I am pleased that the current LNP government in Queensland partnered with us and it is currently under construction. It is being built by Fulton Hogan and will be opened late next year. It is a really important project. There are 300 people working on that project. It is funded by the revenue received from the MRRT. It is an important project. It shows what this sort of funding can do. In the first six months the MRRT raised $126 million. That is $126 million of funding that the government can use for the benefit of all of Australia.
I congratulate the many people opposite who have made their first speech. It is a great experience, opportunity, honour and privilege to be here, but they are about to be mugged by the political reality when they go back to their communities. They are going to have to explain, as the so-called champions of small business, why they are voting for a reduction in the small business instant asset write-off threshold from $6,500 to $1,000 for the 2.7 million small businesses.
Those opposite are about to have to explain to their local communities why they will be voting to get rid of the loss carryback for companies with up to a $1 million threshold. Those opposite are going to have to explain to small business why they are voting for the repeal of the accelerated depreciation of motor vehicles—an instant asset write-off of $5,000 for a new vehicle purchased by a small business—and the repeal of geothermal exploration provisions. Those opposite are going to have to explain why they have voted to delay or defer the increase in superannuation. This will mean, for example, that a 22-year-old shop assistant in my electorate—and in all of their electorates—will lose $100,000 by the time they retire at 67 years of age; a 35-year-old plumber will lose $74,000 by the time they retire. This will be the direct result of the decision that those opposite make either today or sometime later this week on this bill.
Those opposite will reduce the financial security of people in their electorates by the vote they make. Those opposite are going to have to explain to millions of low-income and middle-income Australians why they are being hit by the loss of their low-income superannuation contribution. I cannot understand how those people opposite have the temerity to come into this place and criticise us about class warfare when they think it is okay to give tax breaks to the 16,000 wealthiest superannuants in this country, with assets of more than $2 million in superannuation, and yet slug those people earning less than $37,000 a year with $500 in tax every year. In my electorate there are 20,900 people who will get slugged. Those opposite are also going to have to explain why they will cast their vote in support of young people, single parents and unemployed people losing their income support bonus—$210 a year for singles, $350 for couples. My electorate might be typical; 8,300 people will lose that income support bonus. They are the most vulnerable, disadvantaged people and yet those opposite have the gall to talk about class warfare.
Those opposite will also be voting against the schoolkids bonus. Those opposite supported the education tax refund. I could never understand why they voted against the schoolkids bonus when we brought it in. Before the bonus, mums and dads had to keep all receipts—put them on the fridge with a fridge magnet—and so we decided to make it easier for them with $410 per child for primary school children and $820 per child for secondary school children for eligible families—more than 9 out of 10 families in my community were eligible. In my electorate that means if you send your two children to Raceview State School and then Bremer State High School, the two biggest primary and high schools in my electorate, you would lose $15,000 over the educational life of your kids. I give this illustration because my two daughters went to both of those schools.
But the thing about this that really irritates me is that the MRRT legislation we passed had nothing to do with the schoolkids bonus—absolutely nothing! It was not linked in any way, shape or form, but by stealth and covert measures, in a really disingenuous and deceptive way, those opposite have linked those two things together. And now those opposite are going to have to go back, as the member for Herbert said, to their electorates and explain why they voted against that funding. We are talking about funding for 1.3 million Australian families. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame.
There is something else that really gets to me. I am someone who ran a small business. At 26 years of age I put up my own shingle and ran a small business. I did it for about 25 years, before I was elected, and built it into a multimillion dollar business, but those opposite have the gall to say that no-one on this side of the chamber has any experience in small business. They say this as if they are some sort of paragon of small business advice and gratitude and as if they really know everything, so I cannot get over the fact that they are going to punish small business operators and punish entrepreneurs in their electorates. Those opposite pose and preen and parade themselves as the champions of small business but, through their votes in this place, they are going to gut small businesses. Small business is really going to face reality with this government. Those opposite have raised expectations, but small business owners and entrepreneurs are about to find out, when they go to see their accountant or their auditor, about this stuff. They will discover that the LNP member that they voted for, the one who they just elected, actually cast a vote in this place to support the cuts to their business to make it harder. How is that going to help with the red tape et cetera? Those opposite should be supporting small business. We took a policy to the last election to raise the write-off from $6,500 to $10,000 in relation to small business. The vote of those opposite will create devastation for communities, individuals, the small-business sector and for the smaller regions.
We heard the member for Herbert talking about the regions. In terms of infrastructure, the coalition is anti-council, anti-community, anti-regions and anti-rural. Again and again in this place, in the six years I have been here, those opposite have come into this place and voted against funding for their communities. They are happy to go back to their communities and say, 'Isn't this a good project?' But there are consequences. I say to those new members opposite: there are consequences to the way you vote. Trust me, your constituents note it. They will note that you voted against Regional Infrastructure Australia funding. They will note the fact that you voted against the Regional Infrastructure Fund. The councils know it, the communities know it, the businesses know it and the individuals know it. You might be feeling the great warmth of the love of your family now, after your first speech, but when you go back to your communities after you have voted they know that you voted against them and they will note it. So your arrogance might have been on display over the last few days, but I tell you what: when you go back to your communities you will find out what is what if you are going to support millionaires and mining companies and not individuals and the most vulnerable and disabled people in the most difficult circumstances in your communities.
Let us talk about what might happen. Let us talk about regional infrastructure. I mentioned the mining states—Queensland and WA. There are road projects everywhere which are funded not only through the MRRT but also through Regional Development Australia.
I mentioned in the Federation Chamber this morning two projects that will no longer be funded that were funded under this legislation. There was the Lowood pool upgrade and the Willowbank hard stand upgrade in the most popular motorsport precinct in South-East Queensland. There is also the $2 million flood evacuation centre in my electorate. I represent 70 per cent of Ipswich. I have the Somerset and Wivenhoe dams in my electorate and it has been flood central in the last few years. Thirty thousand people in Ipswich were left without a proper flood evacuation centre. We funded and budgeted $2 million for a proper upgrade to St Joseph's Catholic primary school hall to make sure 30,000 people in Ipswich would get proper evacuation and recovery facilities. The coalition will vote, when they vote on this bill, to take it away from them. They will take it away from my constituents who are flood affected. We had thousands of people in my electorate who were flood affected and they are going to vote to take it away from every single one of them.
What about the AFL? What about the Brisbane Lions—a $60-million relocation project, actually not in my electorate but in the electorate of the member for Oxley. There was $15 million budgeted for to relocate a centenary sports hub in the western corridor between Ipswich and Brisbane, making a big difference and hundreds and hundreds of jobs being created. These are the important things that we are funding. This is what this Labor Party supports—what we did in government, what we budgeted for. The coalition is taking it all away. So do not come into this place with your highfalutin terms and say you support the regions, you support the councils, you support the rural areas, because you don't. You are going to vote against it.
The MRRT is good policy because that wealth belongs to all of us, not just to the mining magnets who fund your campaigns. It is important for all of us. It is important to regional Queensland, which I represent. It is important for flood affected areas, which I represent. You are coming into this place to take it away from them. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation this parliament will deal with in the next three years. There are consequences and in three years time your electors are going to look at it, members opposite, and look at how you voted. There are consequences and you will rue the day you voted for this legislation.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (11:17): Thank you, Deputy Speaker Craig Kelly. It is a welcome sight to see you in that chair. Congratulations.
I rise to speak on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013. It was interesting to listen to the member for Blair—who is just leaving the chamber—stating quite vociferously that the projects in his electorate that they had budgeted for, that their government had funded, were going to be taken away. That is the whole crux of the problem here. They may well have budgeted for them but they were not funded. They were not funded because the tax that the previous Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, drew up in 2010 did not raise any money. That is the crux of the whole problem. We are presented with a whole range of the previous government's spending commitments but no income to pay for those commitments.
It takes a genius—perhaps a whole pack of geniuses—to design a mining tax, to design any tax, that does not raise any money! It also inflicts a compliance burden on the costs of all players. Even though currently they may not be subject to the tax, they actually have to account under a new accounting formula to show at what time in the future they may have to pay the tax. Of course, any company that is trying to develop a project has to write the cost of that compliance burden into the development of the project. I will come to some of those costs in a little while.
The mining tax, of course, originally the resource superprofits tax, was estimated to raise almost $50 billion over five years. By the time the minerals resource rent tax was implemented in 2010, that was down to $26½ billion. It is estimated now that it might raise a little over $4 billion over that five years. In fact, in the last 12 months it has raised just $400 million. The problem is that the previous government committed $18.4 billion worth of expenditure against that income. For the $400 million so far raised, that is around 40 times as much expenditure committed as the tax itself will raise.
I was speaking about companies which may be looking forward to mining. I have had a look at the figures in my electorate. We have one significant iron ore miner and one significant coalminer to power the power station at Port Augusta—Alinta. As far as I know, neither company has contributed to the small amount that has been raised by the mining tax over the last 12 months, but they would have met the accounting procedure. There are 20 companies Australia wide that have paid the tax but there are over 145 that have had to submit MRRT instalment notices.
I think South Australia and particularly my electorate are on the verge of a great growth in mining. In fact, we need it very badly. We have the poorest performing state economically on the mainland. Only Tasmania is performing worst than South Australia. As I look around South Australia and the possibilities and opportunities for us to raise our economic activity, most of them are in the resource industry. Not all of them—we have a very strong agricultural sector, which I am very confident will grow in the future and improve its performance—but the opportunities in South Australia will come from the resource industry. As my electorate covers over 90 per cent of the state, it stands to reason that over 90 per cent of the action in the resource industry will be in my electorate.
The minerals resource rent tax does not target mines—for instance, such as the Roxby Downs mine, even though there was certainly some unease under the previous government that they may in the future extend the tax—other than iron ore and coal mines. We have very significant coal deposits in South Australia but they are not of a high standard and there is a lot of work being done at the moment around hydrocarbon extraction—both underground gasification and above-ground liquefaction—and we are now finding that we have very large resources of iron ore. We could easily run an iron ore industry of 60 to 80 million tonnes a year for export. That is not the Western Australia standard but it is pretty big That is 60 to 80 million tonnes a year that South Australia may be capable of for 50 to 100 years. There are very significant deposits on Eyre Peninsula. The company Iron Road in particular has over three billion tonnes of iron ore proved up. There are a number of other operators in that area. There are significant deposits; some are currently being mined in the Woomera region. There is also a very large line of deposits in what is called the Braemar region, which runs roughly from Peterborough in the north-east to Broken Hill.
At this stage the South Australian government has granted major project status to no less than four different developments in Spencer Gulf to load iron ore. Currently iron ore is being shipped directly out of Whyalla on a barging process. There is another proposal up for a place called Lucky Bay, which would be a different type of barging process, and then there are four others that have major project status. One is the development of a slurry pipeline from the Braemar deposits to the eastern side of Spencer Gulf. There are another two down on the western side of Spencer Gulf between Tumby Bay and Port Neill and then there is one at Whyalla. It seems to me that not all four of these will ever be built, and I am concerned about the planning process. From my point of view, I would like to see one significant port built and then the enabling rail and transport networks put in place to make sure that we have a port of world significance and all the efficiencies that come with that.
The problem we have—and I come back to the mining resource rental tax—is that many of these companies are not cashed up. They are trying to get their projects over the hump, as it were. The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies states:
AMEC conservatively estimates that the minimum accumulated total setup costs in the first year for all iron ore and coal smaller miners and junior exploration companies (excluding large miners) is estimated to be over $20 million in the first year, and an ongoing annual administration and compliance cost in excess of $2 million.
I was speaking earlier about the company Iron Road. They have recently raised over $50 million in the stockmarket. That is a significant cash-raising. But with respect to their project development costs, they would have to build in another $20 million and yet they may not be liable for the current tax for many, many years to come. So it is just an added burden. Maybe to some people $20 million does not sound all that much. Maybe to BHP it does not sound all that much; but it sounds like a hell of a lot of money to me, and these are the burdens that go on these junior explorers and miners—and let me tell you that Iron Road is far more cashed up than many of the others—that they do not need. The very way the tax was designed was punitive on those who were likely, perhaps, in some cases, never to pay it. It is fundamentally flawed and there is no bigger flaw than the fact that, at the end of the day, it raises no money.
My understanding is that no-one has paid the tax in Grey, and it would seem that Australia-wide no-one has paid too much at all, full stop. The member for Blair was talking about the government spending that will be axed and pulled back in as a result of cancelling the mining resource rental tax. He ran through a whole list and I could do exactly the same, but there is one in particular that cuts quite close to home. I admit it is not easy telling some of the news in some of the local projects, and that brings me to the Regional Development Australia Fund. This fund was meant to have $952 million in it, and the member for Blair was only recently telling us that it was committed, it was budgeted for and it was funded, but we know it was not funded, because the tax did not raise any money.
By the election time in 2013—and this project was only one-third of the way through—$916 million of that, 95 per cent, had already been committed. It is worth noting that, in the last 3½ months leading up to the election, almost two-thirds of that fund—$608 million—was committed in what was really the rundown time of the government. It was a time when contracts could not be written, when the money could not begin the stream of being spent in the local electorate—so none of this stuff had happened and it was just the most outrageous example of pork-barrelling coming into an election. There were four rounds announced in the last three months; there have been six rounds altogether in the Regional Development Australia Fund. Round 3 had $50 million for towns of 30,000 or less. I might say that these projects are not necessarily unworthy projects. Many of them are very worthy, but the problem is: there is no money. So, for towns of less than 30,000, there was $50 million—all announced on 9 May. Round 4 was open to community groups and councils and $195 million was announced progressively from 31 May. Round 5—and we really are getting into the days just before the election—was $150 million allocated for councils based on the Financial Assistants Grants, on a formula of $30,000 per council. There was no justification of this expense, and certainly every council would be pleased to get a $30,000 cheque in the mail, but that was just in the lead-up to the election and councils were required to identify projects for assessment with their funding envelope, and of course the 558 councils put through 910 projects. They were all very excited when they got news that their projects had been funded. But of course they were not funded; they were only 'approved'; they could not be funded, because there was no money.
Round 5B was the corker of the lot: over $200 million, by invitation only. That was projects that had been previously knocked back by RDA Australia—so were seen to be wanting—but it was: 'Get your money in now; get your quotes in now; get your bids in now; there is plenty of money to go around.' That was the news coming from the government. 'There'll be plenty of money for everything.' There were plenty of promises for everything; but there was not plenty of money. Unfortunately, when a responsible government got back in power, there were some difficult decisions to be made.
There is nothing more important in Australia. One of the central issues that we have been put in power to achieve is to pull the Australian federal budget back into line, to get expenditure and income aligned in the budget, to pull Australia back from the brink, to pull Australia back from the already $300 billion worth of debt that was accumulated in just six short years. It is a responsibility we take very seriously.
Certainly there is no fun in coming into government and being the bearer of harsher news for the electorate. I said in the lead-up to the election in our party room that I think Australians generally—even if they do not have an interest in politics, even if they do not have an understanding of economics—know in the fibre of their being that Australia could not continue on the path we were on before September 7. They would know that where we were was an unsustainable place, that expenditure was widely out of step with income, and hence the rising debt. So, if there is one thing this government must deliver on—and we will be judged on our performance in this area in three years—it is fiscal responsibility, bringing the budget back to order, binging the projects back under proper order, not just approving projects willy-nilly in the lead-up, in a few days, without proper examination.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (11:32): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta. I congratulate you on your election to your position. It is a pleasure to speak on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013, because it gives me an opportunity to highlight some of the failings of this government already, and some of the very serious things that are contained within this bill.
If this bill were just about the minerals resource rent tax, you might be able to side with government and say, 'Okay, if there is no revenue coming in, there is certainly no burden to anybody, certainly not to mining with no revenue'—as we have just heard from a number of members. You might think that it was something they could argue. I may not agree with it—but I might be able to understand. But they do not seem to understand the purpose of a minerals resource rent tax as a market based, profit based system and mechanism, which in the past perhaps the Liberal Party would have supported—or even thought of themselves—as the best and most efficient way to tax.
You do not just tax on the tonnage that comes out of the ground; that is very inefficient. It does not account for whether you make a profit or make a loss; it just means you are continually paying this royalty based on the amount you extract from the ground. The best way, just like the petroleum resource rent tax, is to actually say to those involved: 'We will not tax you. We will only tax you when you make a profit, particularly a superprofit. That is when you ought to be taxed.'
Let's just remember—and we should absolutely acknowledge this—that those resources are owned by every single Australian. And what should come back to every single Australian is some sort of benefit to them from the once-off use. Once it is out of the ground and used, that is it; it is gone. That resource should be for the benefit of all Australians. So there is no great magic around a minerals resource rent tax as compared to a petroleum resource rent tax which works exactly as intended. In the good years when profits are made, tax is paid. When superprofits are made, a little bit more tax should be paid. These are big mining companies or big petroleum organisations, and they should be able to pay those taxes. So on one hand we have the government saying we need to get rid of this tax that no-one collects; it hasn't raised any revenue and it is such a burden. Who is it a burden to if it is not raising any revenue?
If it was just those arguments, I might just allow the government to have some sort of leeway on this issue. But it is not that that I am concerned about. It is what they have put into this repeal bill which really concerns me. You cannot possibly come into this place and talk about cost-of-living issues and pressures on families and then at the same time in this bill repeal the schoolkids bonus.
I can remember and recall a long time ago people in my electorate—and I am sure it was the same in other people's electorates—families, mums and dads, coming up to you and saying: 'Is there anything you can do for our family to actually reduce our cost-of-living burden, give us a little bit of a hand through the tax system?' It is only on what they spend, just to help with the schoolkids, with the books with uniforms, with excursions, with a whole range of costs associated with educating your children.
We know from research done today, regardless of what school kids go to, there is an enormous cost attached for families in terms of educating their kids. Labor agree with them. We figured there was a really good way that we could help with the cost of living and with families, and that is to give them a schoolkids bonus.
It is modest, but it is fair. We were giving $410 a year for every primary school student and $820 a year for every high school student. That helped 1.3 million Australian families get a better start at the start of the school year, making sure they got that bonus so they could make sure their kids did get all the school uniforms, that they had all the books; maybe they had to buy an iPad or a laptop—all the things that modern education requires of young people today.
That is what upsets me the most about this bill. If they had just done the MRRT and said let's have a debate—let's have an argument, let's have a go at each other over a minerals resource rent tax. The Liberal side of the chamber wants to give a tax break to big mining companies? Let them pursue that course and argue and debate that merits of that. We say we think the big mining companies, if they extract an Australian resource, should share a little bit more of that with all Australians. I am happy to debate that with anybody anywhere. I think on that course of action we are right.
It has also never been the case that a minerals resource rent tax is meant to deliver everything to all people on day 1. It is not there for the next six months to raise money; it is there for the next generation. It is there for our future and for the future of this country. You get the settings and frameworks right, and it delivers. Maybe it is not raising the revenue that it was hoped it would raise today because we have seen a downturn in the mining industry, not in demand but in revenue, and so nobody is paying it. It is pretty hard to complain about a tax you do not pay, but it seems to be the case that that is exactly what the government is doing. The government never misses the opportunity to back big business over small business, the big guys against the little guys. It is always the case that they are on the side of the big mining company or the big petroleum company. When it comes to the ordinary Australian family, 'let them fend for themselves' seems to be the mantra that we get.
If it was just the schoolkids bonus, maybe they could have an argument. I do not think that taking away the schoolkids bonus for 1.3 million families is a good thing to do. We should remind the government and we should remind those 1.3 million Australian families every single week that this government slugged them with an extra tax of $410 per primary child and $820 for every high school student.
It goes further. We know those opposite never supported superannuation for ordinary working people. It is okay for public servants, it is okay for high-end managers and it is okay for mining executives to have super. I think it is okay too, by the way. I do not dispute that anyone should have superannuation. But it took a Labor government, Hawke and Keating, to come up with the outrageous plan that ordinary people should get superannuation as well. How dare we think that an ordinary worker should have a little bit saved up for retirement as well? It was audacious.
We were fought tooth and nail, day and night, kicked almost to death on the issue of superannuation from people like the now Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who said absolutely categorically on the record that he was opposed to it and thought it was the biggest con job this country had ever experienced. You would change your tune today, when you see that national savings through superannuation are now at about $1.6 trillion. Apart from the good work that the Labor government did during the global financial crisis, we had this massive national savings pool of $1.6 trillion which helped underpin our economy.
No-one would argue today that superannuation and the super guarantee was not a great thing to do, even though a whole range of people today who go along with it opposed its introduction. Today the government get their opportunity to go and damage it. They did not like it a little over 20 years ago and they do not like it today, although they give it a bit of lip service every once in a while. What can we do to hurt the superannuation guarantee for ordinary working Australians? They go, 'We will delay the increase.' So a part of this bill delays the increase that Labor put in place, from nine per cent to 12 per cent, which everyone in the industry agrees is where it needs to go over time. A little bit at a time, it needs to go from nine per cent, which is inadequate, to 12 per cent and perhaps in the future even higher. We will talk about that at some later stage.
The first act of this government is to say that workers need to wait. They are going to have to wait two more years. Ordinary people, mums and dads, whether they are working hard in a small business or working for somebody else, are going to have to wait two more years to get the super guarantee increase that Labor put in place. It is not just our view on this. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia also agree. They have attached some numbers to this and said how much this delay will cost people.
A whole range of other associations and bodies have come out slamming the new government and saying: this is not in the national interest; this is not good for the economy; this is not a saving to government but a cost to government. This is actually really bad for working people. It is also bad for the economy and bad for government, but ideology seems to have taken one little extra step forward. When it comes to good economics and good policy, ideology seems to win out, and that I cannot support or agree with.
The government do not rest there. They put more of this stuff in here. They want to make it hard for us to be able to vote for or against things by lumping them all in together. The low-income super contribution that Labor put in place fixed an anomaly where, if you earned $37,000 a year or less, you effectively paid more tax on your superannuation contribution than you did on your salary or your income. Let me tell you, $37,000 is not a lot of money. Ask anybody who is on an income of $37,000 a year or less how tough it must be for them. Again, it took a Labor government to fix this anomaly.
It was agreed across the sector that this was a good move, a good thing. It was worth about $500, not a lot of money, but it makes a big difference if you are on a low income. Labor put into place a measure that removed that tax. It was called the low-income support contribution. Millions of ordinary working people, particularly two million women—because they tend to be the ones to return to the workforce late after raising a family or are in and out of the workforce or work part time—are affected by this.
When we talk about particular issues in here about who we want to help, about decisions to put money on the table, Labor has made it clear: we want to help ordinary people get just a little bit ahead. Five hundred bucks a year extra in their super is going to make an enormous difference to them when they retire. It is worth a substantial amount in today's dollars. Why would you rip it away from them? Why would you take it away from those two million low-income earners, particularly women? If it was just that, you might say, 'Okay, we get it.' But at the same time as the government do that—you are not going to believe this—they are going to reduce the tax paid by people who have got more than $2 million in their super accounts.
The Liberal government says it is happy to take it away from the lowest income earners but if you have more than $2 million in your super balance then it will give you a tax break because it reckons you are probably doing it tough and you need it. I do not think that I can support that either. I think it is quite shameful to do the two together. Maybe the government could have been smart and separated the measures out and done them in different places so we might not notice. But it has done them together, which I think is just wrong and tragic.
These changes mean there will be less benefit to our economy by $53 billion. A number of people have done some research work on this, including Industry Super Australia, and estimate that the removal of the low-income support contribution will reduce national savings by $53 billion by 2021. It is not that far away but $53 billion is a substantial amount.
I want to end my remarks by drawing to the House's attention the fact that this government always claims Liberal governments to be the best friends of small business, the party of small business and that they want to help small business. Let me tell you what we did in government. We put in place a whole range of packages directly to assist small business worth in the many billions of dollars. The first act of this government to thank small business for their election is to take it away from them. What they are going to repeal is the increase in the instant asset write-off from where we had it at $6½ thousand, uncapped, unlimited, for small business. They are going to peg it back to a thousand bucks, because they do not believe small business needs a break or that small business should get a bit of shot at trying to make life easier for them when they buy assets.
Labor, on the other hand, actually supports small business and our policy coming to the election was we would increase it from $1,000 to $6½ thousand, which we did, which was already being used and it benefited small business. We said we would take it to $10,000, because we realised that, when the economy is doing it a little bit tough, you need to support small business and that is what we should do. This mob on the other side are taking it all away from them, so it is pared back to just $1,000.
We also put into place, recognising that small businesses from time to time might actually make a loss or could rearrange their tax affairs in a particular year, Labor's tax loss carry-back worth up to a million dollars. So if a small business wanted to rearrange its tax affairs, buy particular assets and make a loss in a particular year, we said, 'You can carry that back to tax you had already paid in the past up to a million dollars and we will refund the money back to you.' That was because we wanted to be generous to small business and help them out. The Liberal Party says to small business, 'Thanks for the votes during the election, but we are going to take that off you as well. Sorry, we're going to take that off you. I'm sure you're going to be happy with that.' These increases to tax, because that is what it is for small business, are really going to hurt them.
This Liberal government is also going to change the way that we help to accelerate depreciation for motor vehicles: $5,000 instant depreciation. We tried to make it as easy as we could to give a hand-up to small business. We understand they are often just ordinary hardworking people who are really making a go of it, whether they employ their family, a friend or anybody else, whether they are a one-person business or employ more people. Labor wants to support you. We did that through a whole heap of direct cash assistance.
What this Liberal government is doing is taking that away. So throughout these bills, what we see is, first, the misconception that there is a tax that is not raising any revenue which is a burden and kills big miners so therefore we should get rid of it. I am happy to have that debate and argue that quite separately, but don't include in here that you are going to delay the nine to 12 per cent increase in superannuation. Don't make it harder for hardworking Australians on $37,000 a year and don't hurt small business. Give them back the direct cash assistance that we provided to them while we were in government.
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (11:47): On 7 September we had the federal election. We went to that election saying that we would chop the carbon tax, get rid of the mining tax, restore confidence to small business, get rid of red tape, and once and for all make business welcome in Australia again. This has been neglected over the last six years. Businesses had no confidence. Businesses had no guidelines. The goalposts kept moving.
We come to the mining industry: where do they sit now in Australia? In my state of Queensland, and particularly Flynn, we have the Bowen Basin, the Galilee Basin and the Surat Basin. These areas have been hard hit.
What is a fair share tax? I have never heard the opposition tell me what a fair share tax is. Is it 50 per cent? Is it 30 per cent? Is it 80 per cent? They have not said. They might be surprised to know that the mining companies do pay a lot of taxes and, when I say a lot of taxes, I mean a lot of taxes. They pay corporate tax of 30 per cent. They pay payroll tax. They pay superannuation to their employees. They pay very good wages to their staff, and no-one denies miners the pay they get. I have been on several mine sites and I can tell you the miners work hard for their money and are thoroughly deserving of their pay. But their pay is very good pay compared to a policeman, a schoolteacher or a Woolworths worker, and they enjoy the benefits of their hard work.
Mining companies also pay GST, and I do not know whether the opposition know but the mining companies are also very good community minded corporations. They help out in big and small communities in all sorts of different ways. They support doctors in mining towns. They support doctors in communities like Emerald and Biloela. They do a lot of things. They put Christmas parties on for the kids, not just for their own employees and their kids but for the whole town. They are good corporate citizens.
In days gone by we used to welcome mining companies starting off in our region. I know there have been issues—miners versus farmers—but a lot of work has been done to improve the relationship between mining and agriculture. I can tell the House that it is going the right way. There is a saying in a town in my electorate called Rolleston that a successful farmer is one who works four days a week in the mines and the other four days on his property.
Mining companies are a great benefit to our area, our regions and the Australian economy. We do not need to chase these miners to other parts of the world, and that is exactly what is happening today. There are many Australian listed mining companies on the ASX that do not even mine in Australia. Over half of the ASX listed mining companies are not in Australia but in places like Africa, Mozambique, Mongolia and South America. They are not encouraged to invest in Australia. The rewards are few and the pain is great.
Productivity in Australia is not the best and by far the worst in the world in the coal and gas sector. Compare the wage of a coalminer in Indonesia with one in Australia. Twenty years ago, Indonesia did not export one tonne of coal. Now they export more than Australia—more than 30 per cent of the world's thermal coal. We used to export over 30 per cent of the world's total exports of thermal coal, but now we have slipped under 30 per cent. An Indonesian coalminer earns US$12,000 a year and I would hazard a guess that Australian wages are more around $150,000 a year.
We do need encouragement for mining companies to still feel welcome in Flynn and it will mean a lot in towns like Emerald, Capella, Moura, Blackwater and Tieri. Those towns have suffered since the mining tax was introduced and of course commodity prices have dropped and the Australian dollar has not helped things. All these costs impinge on an industry that is having a good look at its costs and finding out which mines will stay open and which mines will close, which contractors it will keep and which contractors it will let go. This is evident when I go to places like Springsure, Capella and Emerald, where back in the good old days I would have to book accommodation at least three weeks out, but now I can go to any one of those towns and readily get accommodation. Once upon a time, you could not rent a house in those towns and, if you were lucky enough to, you would pay through the nose for it. That has all changed. Contractors have left in droves.
Regarding small business versus big business, I find that small business relies heavily on big business. If you do not have big business in a town, you do not have small business. Small businesses rely heavily on support from big industry in towns like Gladstone and Emerald—and, believe me, I was one of those small businesses. It is foolish to say that we only look after big business and not small business. That is a load of hogwash. We look after all businesses and that is why we pledged in the election campaign to reduce red tape on small business and in fact every other business that exists in Australia—from government business to councils to big and small business, including the mining sector. It was ridiculous getting an EIS through under the previous government. It took up to three years and sometimes longer than that. That is totally unacceptable. At the end of those three years, a company has either lost interest in the project or moved on, and in a lot of cases has moved overseas to start business elsewhere.
When it comes to superannuation, I heard what the previous speaker said, but I think it would also be a good idea if the employees were to put some money along with the employer's money into a superannuation fund. That would be another way of giving the workers, on retirement, a decent superannuation income that they could live off. Living longer, living better, as they say, would be enhanced if they were to contribute some of their own money into their superannuation fund. I objected to the way the opposition when in power could pilfer money from superannuation funds and from bank accounts. I think that is a travesty of justice and is not acceptable.
I listened with interest to the member from Grayndler, the former minister for infrastructure. He spoke about many projects that were delivered under the mining tax. What caught my attention was when he mentioned Gladstone, which of course is very dear to my heart. He said the port access road was virtually completed, with $50 million of the mining tax money—which of course never eventuated. I have to inform the House that the port access road stage 2 has not even been started, yet he said it is nearly completed. I have asked in the House and I have asked the then minister for infrastructure: where was the $50 million for the Gladstone port access road stage 2? I got no answers. I went to the main roads department and they told me that they have not seen the plans. I went to the local council and asked them if they had seen the plans for the Gladstone port access road stage 2. The answer was no. Yet, the former minister said in this House an hour ago that the road was almost completed. I would like that to be explained because there are no plans and there is no road. So I question all the other projects he mentioned in and around Australia.
I do question the former minister's grasp on his job. He came to Gladstone during the election and promised $10 million for the Kinkora intersection roundabout. He promised $10 million—it took him a couple of minutes to do that—and then spent the rest of his spiel to the media criticising me and my government for a lack of funding, a lack of submissions, a lack of promoting our area, and accusing me. I inform the House that, as far as the Bruce Highway is concerned, there is work being done there at the Calliope Crossroads, the Yeppoon roundabout and Gin Gin north and south. But when the Leader of The Nationals Warren Truss and our team of Nationals went for a trip from Brisbane to Cairns on the Bruce Highway what did the then Minister for Transport and Infrastructure do? He laughed at us and said, 'It's a waste of time. I'm running this show, not you blokes.' Then he accuses me of not putting in any submissions to either him or the then Treasurer Wayne Swan.
It has been a continual battle to find out what projects are on the board and what projects have been properly funded. When it boils down to the real facts, with the Gladstone port access road stage 2 and the Gladstone-Kinkora roundabout, they have not consulted with the Queensland government. I was responsible for negotiating with Campbell Newman the other $12½ million of state government money to match the $12½ million of federal money to get the project underway. I could not believe that a minister of his experience could less-than-half promise a project without liaising with his counterpart in Queensland.
All these things add up to a mining tax that does not produce sufficient money to keep it going. It is wrong. In my idea of running a show that is give and take, a show that will encourage people to come, the mining companies in Australia do pay sufficient tax.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (12:02): Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I think it is the first time I have been before you as a member of the Speaker's panel, so congratulations on that elevation, while it was some time ago. I rise to speak on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 and oppose it. This bill has some very nasty measures. Once the Australian people fully understand the implications of such measures, they will be, like the opposition, concerned about the enactment of this bill.
The bill seeks, at least ostensibly, to primarily repeal the minerals resource rent tax. We oppose the repeal of that tax and we do so on a number of grounds, which I will go to. But we also oppose this bill because of its position on a number of measures that have been helping ordinary working families in this country. For example, we are concerned that this bill will repeal the schoolkids bonus. The schoolkids bonus provides relief to families in a timely way in order for them to alleviate cost-of-living pressures when they need it most. They need it, sitting around the kitchen table when school expenditure is being considered and how they are going to buy the kids some school shoes and how they might buy the books and uniforms. That schoolkids bonus has been well received and, indeed, has been provided to many, many families in this country. Now it is going to be taken away. It is going to be ripped away from families even though the basis upon which it is being taken away, as asserted by the government, is not true.
The minerals resource rent tax was not put in place to provide the revenue for such expenditure. The schoolkids bonus was not derived from that source and therefore it is entirely improper to suggest, as the government does, that we need to repeal that benefit to families because we are looking to repeal the minerals resource rent tax. We oppose the repeal of the minerals resource rent tax because we believe that a profit based tax on profits from the minerals sector, minerals which belong to the Australian people, is good reform and is the best way to tax that very important sector in our economy.
That is not to say that there have not been some concerns about the way it has been implemented. We concede that. But this is a far more efficient and reasonable approach to taxation in that sector than the royalties that are imposed by state governments, and we still hold that view. We also think it is in the interests of that sector that you pay the most tax when there are the highest profits and that that tax recedes when there are fewer profits. That is good for the sector, good for the companies and good for our economy in general. We continue to support that approach.
The government cannot have it both ways. They like to say the tax has been so great that it is wreaking havoc on investment in the sector. At the same time, the Treasurer says, 'You haven't retrieved the tax you would say that you have and the tax receipts have been a paltry sum.' The fact is the tax will fall when profits fall and the tax will rise when profits rise. It is exactly the mechanism that we prefer because of, as I say, the way it responds to the needs of companies in that sector.
But let there been no mistake: this is not about the repeal of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax alone. This is about taking away from families the schoolkids bonus and removing from millions of Australians the tax concessions on their superannuation. That is what is happening if this bill were to be enacted. For example, this bill would ensure that there would be an increase in superannuation taxes on one in three of Australia's lowest paid workers, which would be devastating for those workers. Within weeks the government has sought to cut the super of millions of Australians earning up to $37,000 per annum whilst boosting the super for a mere 16,000 who have $2 million in superannuation balances. That is how stark the government decision has been in relation to super since they were elected. They have not been elected for longer than a few months and they are taking tax concessions from more than three million of the lowest paid superannuants and at the same time providing a bonus to 16,000 of the richest superannuants. That exemplifies this government's approach to looking after those who are at the higher end of income at the expense of the many who are on low incomes.
This bill sees the government scrapping the low-income superannuation contribution which sees the equivalent of superannuation tax up to $500 paid by a low-income earners up to $37,000 paid into the superannuation account of the taxpayer. The measure was important for a number of reasons. For high-income earners superannuation can be concessional; for low-income earners there are no effective incentives to contribute to their superannuation. This measure addressed that very issue. I might add that the removal of this contribution hits women particularly hard, with 2.1 million women affected by the removal of this concession. A significant percentage of these are mothers working part time while looking after young children. That is exactly the part of a woman's career where an additional $500 a year going into super will be of most benefit for building savings for their retirement and indeed for their family.
The other major concern about this bill's removal of the low-income superannuation concession is that it is an example of a retrospective tax measure, a fact confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer's checking of the coalition's election costings. Low-income earners entered the 2013-14 financial year on the understanding that they would be refunded their superannuation tax. Part-way through this financial year the government has changed the rules on those taxpayers. Industry Super Australia estimates that, when combined with the proposed delay that has also been put forward by the government in increasing the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, the removal of the low-income superannuation concession will reduce national savings by $53 billion by 2021-22. This means a reduction in available capital for infrastructure investments by around $5 billion based on current industry-wide asset allocations. And this is at a time when the government is looking around for funding streams to finance new infrastructure projects. These are bad policy decisions which will have implications for this nation's savings. This will have implications for the capacity to find capital to invest in infrastructure and, as I said, it will have implications for millions of workers on lower incomes, particularly women who go in and out of the workforce when they are the primary carer of their children. These are some of the reasons that we cannot support the bill that is before the House.
The other concern I have as a former minister for small business is that this government's legislation will increase taxes on over two million small businesses and indeed close the loss carry-back scheme, taking away tax breaks for up to 110,000 businesses in this country. It should be no surprise that just a few weeks ago we saw a commission of audit outsourced to big business, the big business lobby group, chaired by Tony Shepherd. He may well be a reasonable man and have a particular perspective but he definitely represents big business. It should be no surprise that with no small business representation at all on that commission of audit we see a tax hit on millions of small businesses. Interestingly, the coalition's plans to remove these small business investment incentives has united big and small business in opposition, with both the Australian Industry Group and COSBOA speaking out against their removal.
As minister I was honoured and happy to be able to announce with the Treasurer at the time the introduction of the instant asset tax write-off, bringing forward the capacity for getting depreciation on assets purchased of up to $6,500 for each and every asset for small businesses, cutting red tape, removing the requirement of putting in these depreciation schedules year after year and being able to do it in the first 12 months, getting the windfall in one year rather than over four years. This is something that was welcomed by the small business community, the small business sector, by COSBOA, the peak body. I was very happy to be associated with that initiative. That will be taken away by the Treasurer and by Prime Minister Abbott by enacting this bill. Enacting this bill will see the end of that depreciation, those tax concessions and that cut to red tape that small business enjoyed because of that initiative introduced by the previous government.
Here we have a government which like to talk about small business, say they are the party of small business, say they are going to remove red tape and say that they are going to provide tax concessions to small business. What do they do with the first bill in this place on these matters? They remove the tax concessions for small business and increase the compliance on small business. In other words, they bring back red tape and remove the tax concessions available for millions of small businesses around this country. They should hang their heads in shame, because that is entirely contrary to what this Prime Minister said when he was making his comments on these matters before the election. He said one thing before the election; he has done another thing since the election. This is not the government that the Australian people thought they were getting when they voted on 7 September and this bill, more than anything else, has underlined that reality.
The bill also includes the abolition of the income support bonus, a tax-free payment, which came into effect earlier this year to help people prepare for unexpected living costs. If the proposed abolition is successful, then people aged over 50 who are on the Newstart allowance will lose the payment. The income support bonus provides $210 extra a year for single people and $350 extra a year for couples, to assist them in meeting unforeseen costs, such as medical expenses or car repairs. Some might say that $210 or $350 a year is not a lot of money. It may not be a lot of money to everybody. But this money is vital for those people currently in receipt of it, who need it when times are tough, when their income is constant but low and when they have some surprise bills in their letterbox and need to respond to them. That measure was there to provide relief. It will be removed by this heartless government, which is touching people's super by cutting millions of superannuants' tax concessions and, indeed, is now looking to remove this bonus.
We oppose this bill because we believe the minerals resource rent tax is the right approach to taxation. But, most fundamentally, we oppose this bill because it removes the schoolkids bonus, which will hurt families, it will remove concessions on superannuation and, indeed, it will attack all the concessions and allow the red tape that we removed for small businesses. It is a bad bill. It will not be supported by this opposition.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (12:17): It is not often that this House, in debating the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013, can debate the removal of a tax that will actually make the Australian budget better off. Such has been the mismanagement of the Rudd and Gillard and Rudd Labor governments that we find ourselves in exactly that position. The budget bottom line will be improved by some $15 billion over the current forward estimates with the passing of this repeal legislation.
The mining resource rent tax, introduced by Labor, actually damaged international investor confidence in Australia and, in particular, the energy and resources sector. We have seen so many projects shelved or put on hold over the last couple of years. This measure was very clearly an attack on Western Australia by the Labor government. The iron ore industry in Western Australia was clearly one of its primary targets. Iron ore remains Western Australia's highest value commodity, accounting for $56.4 billion or 73 per cent of the state's total mineral sales.
So, once again, like the carbon tax, the MRRT was not only an attack on WA. Even worse, it was a direct attack not only on regional Australia and regional Western Australia where the resources and wealth are generated but also on the service sector where the people who work in the mining sector live—the fly-in fly-out workers—in parts of my electorate around Busselton, the Margaret River and the south-west. At least 3,000 of these people live within about 100 kilometres of Busselton airport and they, along with the other companies which actually supply the resources sector, were all directly impacted, particularly by the government's first announcement.
Mineral and petroleum exports, in total, comprise 89 per cent of Western Australia's state total merchandise exports and provide the major contribution to WA's 47 per cent share of the nation's total merchandise exports. Have no doubt that the mining tax was a direct assault on Western Australian by the then Labor government. The repeal of this tax will provide a desperately needed boost for the mining industry and is a strong step towards repairing the perceptions that international investors have formed about Australia since Labor came to government in 2007: the sovereign risk issue, the long-term investment risk issue.
The original mining tax, the resource superprofits tax, was expected to raise $49.5 billion over five years. In July 2010, the RSPT tax proposed by Labor was replaced with the minerals resource rent tax and the extension of the PRRT to onshore projects. While the original resource superprofits tax and mining resource rent tax was at that time forecast to raise around $26.5 billion over five years, MRRT revenue estimates have since been progressively revised down: 'It wasn't going to do what we thought it was going to do. We got it wrong yet again—more numbers we got wrong again.' Since its commencement, the MRRT has only raised $400 million in net terms, yet the former government has locked in more than $16.7 billion of expenditure on an underlying cash basis over the current forward estimates or $18.4 billion of expenditure on a fiscal basis over the current forward estimates.
The repeal of the MRRT and its associated expenditure will improve the budget bottom line by $13.4 billion over the forward estimates on an underlying cash basis and $15.1 billion over the forward estimates on a fiscal basis. The repeal will also save millions of dollars. This is the issue for the mining and resource sector as well as having to pay: it is the compliance expense for small, medium and large mining entities, many of whom are centred in Western Australia, with the iron ore industry in the north-west. For example, around 165 miners have been required to submit MRRT instalment notices, yet fewer than 20 of these have actually contributed to the net $400 million raised by the MRRT to date. They have spent millions of dollars doing this work to find out they do not have to pay the tax. So we have added to their cost of doing business, for no benefit. The remaining 145 have had masses more Labor red tape to deal with, while making no net payments. It just does not add up. It is just incredible, a disaster.
The mining tax, along with the carbon tax, has inhibited a range of the junior miners. There were those that said to us: 'Our companies would never have got off the ground at all in the environment of the Labor government. We would not have been able to generate the income for the state and the nation if we were trying to start out now, under these circumstances.' We know that Labor have no understanding of the resources sector, otherwise they would not have done this, and Labor certainly have no understanding of exploration costs and long-term financing requirements.
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, we said that we would do this from the time that Labor applied this tax. The electorate were in no doubt. They went to the election knowing that we had said we would repeal not only the carbon tax but the mining tax, and this is a government that keeps its promises, unlike Labor. We promised to repeal the mining tax, and that is what this legislation does. We mean what we say, and that is exactly what we are doing. This commitment goes back years, and it is a policy that has never changed. The electors knew that. The electors of Forrest knew that. We have been entirely transparent. The government of the day fought the repeal of the MRRT at both the 2010 and 2013 federal elections.
When I talk about what happens in regional areas, I look at my electorate and the first iteration of the mining tax. Three months into that, I went and talked to businesses—including small businesses and individuals—in my electorate, because a lot of them supply and service the mining sector, from the south-west into the north and more broadly. The tax affected the fly-in fly-out workers, because some of them were not sure whether they were going to have jobs and what the tax would do to them. I went and talked to small businesses in the retail sector. For so many of them their income flat-lined because their customers were the fly-in fly-out workers, who put their hands back in their pockets because they did not know if they were going to have a job. I went and spoke to a fencing contractor who worked for the magnetite sector, and he said, 'I used to have months of work lined up well ahead, because there was confidence in the industry to do the exploration.' As a result of the tax, he was down to two workers, and he said: 'I've got two weeks of work left. I've put off eight people.' So, if you think this sort of decision by government does not have an impact in a rural and regional area, it certainly does. There was a direct impact. And two of those retail outlets that I went to visit who had seen such a significant drop are no longer in business.
I want to talk about the resources in my electorate. In the south-west we manufacture 22 per cent of the global supply of alumina, which a lot of people do not understand, so the decisions are very relevant. The entire national supply of silicon is processed in the south-west, and we are a key source of lithium as well. The mineral sands miners and processors are internationally significant suppliers and they employ thousands of people throughout the electorate, along with Iluka Resources, which has the largest synthetic rutile plant in Australia in my electorate. And of course we have significant coal deposits and we generate nearly half of the state's power supply. This bill will repeal a range of the expenditure measures for these businesses, and that will save billions.
There is no choice, because you cannot spend money you do not have. But that is what Labor were doing. They did not have the income that was supposed to be generated by the mining tax. However, they were still spending it. We know that, in time, that Labor spending will incur a bill of $10 billion a year in interest alone. And we know that we are going to punch through the debt ceiling in the not too distant future—$320 billion worth of debt. The government have to make the decisions that we said we would and we have to give confidence back to the mining and resource sector. Those projects are on hold, and some of them unfortunately have been abandoned.
I want to talk briefly about schedule 5 of this bill, the provisions that mean expenditure on geothermal energy exploration is not immediately deductible. There are very real reasons for this. In the decade from 2000 to 2010, and probably more around 2005, there were a number of companies, some in Western Australia, that thought geothermal was a real option, and vast areas of the state were open for exploration to develop geothermal assets. However, over time, given the costs involved in this work, although there are companies that are still looking into the process, there is probably less commitment to this than there was previously and, clearly, geothermal will not be the great panacea that some of the early thoughts suggested. And there are significant costs to the power generation from this resource. Certainly geothermal is a cheap and reliable resource in areas where volcanic rocks can be tapped as a heat source to impart the energy into the water, producing the steam for the power generation. Countries like the Philippines and parts of New Zealand have made good use of this.
However, pumping water thousands of metres underground to be heated by volcanic rocks is an entirely different matter, with vastly more problematic economics. That is what it gets down to. This is not to say it will not play a future role in our energy mix but simply that it will be less prospective in the short term than perhaps the early predictions suggested. So the repeal of this part of the MRRT is therefore understandable.
As I said when I started my remarks, we had no doubt in Western Australia that the mining resource rent tax was a tax that deliberately targeted Western Australia; it targeted regional Western Australia. I have explained some of the impacts of that. It was simply another way of taking funding away from the west to buy good will and, ultimately, votes in the east. It was a very cynical process. Western Australia will be relieved to see the back of this tax.
I congratulate our government for keeping this key promise. The people who voted in Western Australia were in no doubt that this is what we said we would do and that we would do it. Basically, as a very early order of business, it is exactly what we are doing. For several years, this is what we told you we would do and this is exactly what we are doing.
It is very reassuring for people out in the electorates to see sound process, good governance and good government. This reassures business, industry, families and people who live and work in regional Australia. We do know that the iron ore industry is the backbone of Western Australia today and that it is a major contributor to the national economy. It has been shifting from exploration, to development, through to production. However, its contribution will continue to be massive. But it is not seen—and it should not be seen by the Labor Party—as simply a cash cow to be milked by Labor for political gain.
I commend this bill, and the government that was wise enough to present it, to the House.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (12:32): The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 is symbolic of the coalition's approach to government. They are saying that the natural resources of this country do not belong to the people but belong to the billionaires—the billionaires that want Australians to work for $2 a day.
The MRRT was a response to the Henry tax review's recommendation of a profit based tax. Labor have a proud history of pursuing profit based taxes. We have supported a petroleum resource rent tax since the 1970s and the Hawke government was successful in legislating one in 1987. The minerals resource rent tax is necessary because, prior to this century, the country received around $1 in every $3 of mining profits. By the end of the boom that occurred last decade, this had fallen to just $1 out of every $7 in mining profits. The tax was a fair policy response to this situation.
The MRRT is generational tax reform—not something that you can evaluate in the first 12 months of its operation, as the government has sought to do. Indeed, it is with hindsight that we can see the value of the mining tax arrangements put in place by other countries around the world, most notably Norway, in the 1970s. Norway's mining tax has not hindered investment in their sector. They have a very strong sovereign wealth fund that they are using right now to diversify their economy for when their minerals wealth ends. It is something that the previous Labor government sought to do and something that I am very proud to be associated with. More importantly, we really need to think about whose resources they are. They are the Australian people's resources. People deserve their fair share of the prosperity that comes from the mining boom.
Learning from the lazy, wasteful approach of Peter Costello, Labor was determined to ensure that the proceeds from this resource boom were shared more fairly. The MRRT did this. It delivered for families with young children, young people, low-income earners and, at the heart of local economies, small business. It provided investment in infrastructure, particularly in mining affected regions, and gave a boost to businesses in transitional or expansive phases. The repeal of this tax will affect millions of Australia's lowest paid workers. It removes much needed financial support to families, students and the unemployed.
Much to the shame of this government, their legislation attacks small businesses. To attack the most vulnerable in our community is never fair, but to do so while boosting the coffers of the most privileged is simply indefensible. The only people in this place practising class warfare are those opposite. The only people that they care about are the mining magnates who fly them to weddings in India.
I turn to my electorate of Charlton to highlight to the House the real impact of the repeal of the MRRT. This tax was to have provided a significant boost to the people of western Newcastle and West Lake Macquarie. The removal of the low income superannuation contribution, for example, will potentially affect up to 25,000 low-income earners in Charlton alone. Many of these people are part-time or casual workers. Some of these people are starting out in the workforce, others are in low-paid full-time work. The majority of these people are women. By virtue of these circumstances, these workers will accrue very few superannuation contributions. The low income superannuation contribution was an important step towards boosting their superannuation balances. For example, a 30-year-old permanent part-time worker earning a quarter of the annual average wage who received this contribution over 20 years of their working life would have been $13,000 better off. This would have made a massive difference to their quality of life.
Importantly, the low income superannuation contribution also addressed a fundamental inequality in the superannuation tax system that sees workers on low incomes pay up to $500 a year in tax on their superannuation, at or above their income tax rate. For these workers, who started the year thinking that they would have extra money in their super funds, this repeal means that by the end of the financial year they will find themselves short-changed by this government. When you combine this measure with the other regressive measures that the government is implementing—freezing the superannuation guarantee charge and giving a tax cut to the 16,000 largest superannuation accounts, people with more than $2 million in super—it speaks volumes about this government's approach to superannuation retirement income. They are taking it from the poorest people in the community and giving it to the wealthiest. They think the only people entitled to a dignified retirement are millionaires. That is a complete disgrace. It is not just low income workers in Charlton who will suffer. It will be those who are currently out of work and who receive the much-needed income support bonus that will suffer. This is a cash grab that will affect around 8,500 people in Charlton. This is money used by people who are on fixed incomes and who are doing it tough or are in need of urgent financial assistance. It is such vital support. Removing this payment risks entrenching poverty and could put up further barriers to workforce participation. It is not the Labor way, and I am very proud that on this side of parliament we will oppose this disgraceful measure.
The other cut that I really want to talk about is the abolition of the schoolkids bonus, which is the most deceitful aspect of this bill. Every Labor speaker has made the point that the schoolkids bonus is in no way linked to revenue from the resource rent tax. It was a completely separate measure and its abolition will affect 9,000 families in Charlton—9,000 are low or middle income families in Charlton who depend on this assistance when it is time for their kids to go to school. The schoolkids bonus, in effect, replaced the underutilised education tax refund, which began operation in 2008—three years before the passage of the MRRT through this place. The government is hiding behind the minerals resource rent tax, trying to conceal the fact that they are clawing back a payment that helps families at the start of each school semester.
If I can turn to another part of the hypocrisy of those opposite in this place: they claim to be the party of small business, but what they are doing through this bill is attacking small business. They claimed at the last election that they would 'lower small business taxes' but this bill represents an increase in the taxation burden on small business. They are repealing the tax carry-back which, for the first time, is helping businesses at the time of losses, rather than making them wait till their profits return. For some businesses, this could mean the difference between trading out of bad times or taking a short-term hit for the sake of expansion of their business. They are also slashing the amount businesses can claim through the instant asset write-off and motor vehicle deduction. When combined with the repeal of further measures included in the carbon price package, this government is reducing the amount a small business can claim through an instant asset write-off by a massive $5,500. I have spoken to businesses in my electorate, and they are incredibly disappointed by this measure. These are businesses that have to scrape together every cent they can to make small capital purchases—whether it is a tradie needing a new ute, a hairdresser looking for a new basin or a cafe looking for a new coffee machine. They need this funding. I spoke to one local cafe who was greatly delighted when Labor took a policy to the last election of a $10,000 instant asset write-off. Not only will they not be getting their $10,000 instant asset write-off, but they will lose what they are currently entitled to. That is a complete shame and it will inhibit small business growth in Charlton and the broader economy. What would you expect from a government that when in opposition voted against a reduction in the company tax rate? This is simply another case of the government bowing to the demands of large mining companies at the expense of small businesses.
This bill also represents an attack on regions affected by mining. I am proud to say that Charlton is a region built on coalmining. I am also proud to say that there are still six coalmines in operation in Charlton and we have the largest power station in Australia. We are a region that is used to cohabiting with mining. We know the important role the sector plays in our community. We are really proud that our mining companies are good corporate citizens. It is very important that resource regions benefit from the profits derived from the resources extracted from their land. They are making the greatest sacrifices in terms of truck movements, coal dust, and infrastructure needs from the use of mining, and it is their right to enjoy the superprofits that arise from that mining. That is why Labor implemented the Regional Infrastructure Fund. This was to deliver major infrastructure funding to those communities that support the mining sector. The rift through its three investment streams promised unprecedented opportunity for investment in areas such as the Hunter Valley. The new government's attack on the Regional Infrastructure Fund demonstrates that all their talk about supporting regions is just that—talk. They would rather give a tax cut to billionaires than help working people in the regions.
My region knows all too well the cycle of mining booms. They know that mining booms always come to an end and we need to work on supporting the next boom and diversifying the local economy so that it can survive the ups and downs associated with mining. I am proud to say that Newcastle is a shining example of an economy gearing up for the future, having transformed itself from the 'Steel City' of old to a hub of clean technology research and development. Newcastle is home to the CSIRO Clean Energy Research Centre, the Newcastle Institute for Resources and Energy and is the pilot site for the $200 million Smart Grid, Smart City initiative. It is thanks to massive investments by the former Labor government that Newcastle is now a place where clean energy technologies grow from a good idea into a practical reality. But they are an overlooked victim of the repeal of the minerals resource rent tax, as there are provisions in the repeal bill to promote the exploration and development of geothermal energy. This soon-to-be-scrapped deduction enabled communities and companies to immediately offset the cost of exploration or prospecting for geothermal sites against assessable income. It is a small but unsurprising part of this repeal, and it speaks volumes about the coalition's approach to clean energy. They seek to destroy the carbon price in favour of subsidies to polluters, and they want to hinder burgeoning renewable energy businesses in favour of a tax cut for big miners. I note that the previous speaker's logic was rather tortuous. She was saying that geothermal was getting harder and therefore government should make it even harder by cutting an instant deduction for geothermal exploration. The logic there is astounding—only a member of the Liberal Party could come up with such logic.
In conclusion, Labor is proud of introducing the minerals resource rent tax. It was a genuine effort to ensure that the people of Australia shared in the superprofits from mining booms. After all, it is their resources that are being exploited, not those of mining companies. The MRRT is a smart way of managing the profits of a mining boom in the interests of all Australians, not just mining executives and their shareholders. When income is pouring in Australians quite rightly expect their government to spend and invest the proceeds wisely and not allow them to be frittered away, as the Howard-Costello government did.
A profits based tax is not only economically efficient it is also an equitable way of sharing the proceeds of the boom. Fundamentally, this is the difference between those on this side of the House and those on the opposite side. We support giving a fair share to working families and all Australians. They support giving the proceeds to the billionaires who fund their election campaigns. Our vision is for a prosperous future for all Australians, not just wealthy miners. Our vision considers those in our communities who are struggling and need a little help. Our vision supports small businesses and regional community infrastructure.
I will note in closing that they are very confused, even on the economic front of this debate. On one hand the government is saying that the minerals resource rent tax is not working because it is not making any revenue and then on the other hand they are saying it is killing the industry by taking too much out. You cannot have both at the same time, yet they are trying just that. It demonstrates, yet again, the hypocrisy of those opposite.
I am incredibly proud that the last Labor government implemented this reform. It built on our work in the offshore petroleum industry in the 1980s. I am deeply opposed to the repeal of this legislation, because it is working Australians who will suffer and those on fixed incomes: those who suffer; those who have very low superannuation; those who depend on the emergency payments associated with this; those in regions affected by mining, who would have benefited from the infrastructure; and struggling small businesses, who were really looking forward to using instant asset write-offs. So I think this bill is symbolic of the government's warped priorities of supporting those who need help the least and attacking those who need help the most. I am very proud to oppose this bill.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (12:46): I rise to speak on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013, and, just from listening to the previous speaker, I am glad that I am doing so.
About the comment that the resources belong to all Australians: I think there are a couple of little imaginary lines drawn on the map of Australia—we call those places 'states'! I think they have an inherent right to call those resources their own. We could get a challenge on it through the courts for a determination on who they are really owned by. The whole principle of the state royalty provisions is to provide that the ownership of those resources sits with the states.
Mr Thistlethwaite: They belong to the people!
Mr BUCHHOLZ: Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!
They came into this place and spoke about how proud they were of the minerals resource rent tax. I just want to find out how proud they are of which version? I was here for the last term and I saw five versions of the tax. There were more starts on that tax than Phar Lap had. Dead set.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: Is it a Phar Lap tax?
Mr BUCHHOLZ: I can only make the sweeping assumption that the last version is the one that you settled on. Again, like most pieces of legislation brought by this government last time, it was some thought-bubble brought up on the back of—heaven forbid!—someone making a profit. Those on the other side of the House will always have socialists who make the point that 'profit' is a dirty word, and anyone who makes a profit must be evil.
Later on during my speech I will make a particular note of the comparative tax rates of our mining sector here in Australia—the sovereign risk issues—and how we compare with other mining investments right around the world. We need to be competitive as a nation. I did not believe it for one moment when the member who spoke before me—the member for Charlton—spoke about going into a small business and that they were devastated they had lost their tax benefit. Did he manage to bring up the bit about the superannuation with them, because it is small business that actually paid the increase?
When this bill was brought before the House, the government was spruiking about the increase in superannuation. All economic theorists agree that superannuation does need to go up—absolutely. With cost-of-living pressures, it does need to go up. But it needs to go up in a way which is sustainable. It is no good speaking to someone in the street who is unemployed. This is where it is going to get to, if you speak to someone in the street who is unemployed: 'Mate, what do you do for a living?' He will say, 'I'm unemployed. But I tell you what, if I was working I would get 12 per cent.' It is better to have a job and to be picking up your nine per cent and let your business grow for a couple of years. We, as a conservative government—the true party of small business—will come to the rescue of business and save them, as only we can and as the history books tell us that we do.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: You've never voted for any superannuation increase ever!
Mr BUCHHOLZ: On the back of your comments, I want to have a chat about Norway. Norway is quite a peculiar country. They have a number of oil reserves and they have been putting away reserves similar to what we had in the Future Fund. We thought that what Norway was doing was not a bad idea, so we started to do that as well. We called it the 'Future Fund'. The Labor government got into power and spent the money! If it is a Future Fund for the future and if you aspire to the same benefits as Norway in economic credibility you need to remember that we had a Future Fund that was quickly depleted when Labor got into government.
The previous speaker spoke about billionaires. I know billionaires—they are good people—same as the other side knows union bosses. They know the Eddie Obeids and those HSU bosses. They know those guys, so they should not come in here and be provocative about someone having a relationship with a billionaire being a bad place to be and that everything done on the other side of the chamber is good and righteous.
The MRRT damaged international investor confidence in Australia, has damaged the mining industry and subsequently had an impact on our nation's economy. The lead-in time for mining investment is about five years, so by the time they do their first geo inspections and get all their state and federal preapprovals in place we will not see the effects of this tax for another couple of years. But we are seeing the financial impacts straight away, because we were supposed to have a bucket load of money—and I will run through those numbers later on. It was a bucket load of money that was supposed to be generated out of this tax. But that never happened. Counting numbers is not the Labor Party of Australia's strength. Nearly every line item or portfolio that these guys have previously presided over has been absolutely diabolical.
The MRRT has proved a monumental failure when it comes to raising even half the forecast revenue—revenue which the previous government had already spent. That is the clanger. No-one would expect a small business or a medium-sized business in Australia to operate under the conditions under which the previous government set this up. Fair enough if the government had said, 'This is the revenue, we'll wait till it comes in and then we'll invest that into our nation.' But, no, there was an election cycle on. The Left and the Right were at each other's throat. It was like coming to work each day and wondering: who are Labor going to have as their Prime Minister this week? Who are they going to have as their immigration minister? Who are they going to have as their small business minister? It was like a turnstile of revolving personalities in this parliament. As a result of them not being able to get their act together, Australia as a nation was the lesser for it.
Comments were made in this House that the Australian people have spoken overwhelmingly. We now have what one would consider a legitimate mandate. One only needs to have a look at the chairs in this parliament. For the benefit of the Hansard, the chamber we stand in is a U-shaped horseshoe and the coalition numbers consume over half, whilst on the other side, outside of the numbers on its front bench, the Australian Labor Party is flat out getting to the first aisle on that side. What significance has that for Australia? It just means that, for each population block of 90,000, each member has been sent here with a majority from their electorate. Not that the Australian Labor Party is great at listening to the Australian people: one only needs to have a look at the election of their leader, where one gets 18,000 votes, the other one gets 12,000, and the bloke who gets 12,000 wins. So it is not as if they have a great track record at having an acute ear to the Australian public.
Putting all that aside, the mining sector is cyclical. We have spoken about the lead-in time, the five years that it takes. Sometimes it takes longer: we have got coal interests in Queensland which are trying to get up at the moment and they are going to be closer to eight and in some instances 10. Talking about the lead-in times, the coal reserves at one particular lease in Queensland that is being looked at have the capacity to generate out of the Galilee Basin an equal amount of coal to the complete amount generated by the Bowen Basin at the moment. That is the next wave of the resources sector that has the capacity to come on. By comparison, in Mongolia there are Australian companies that have chosen, under the political climate set by the previous government, not to invest in the future of the Australian coal sector. Because it was seen to be a lesser risk, they have chosen to take their investment to Mongolia. The production costs in Mongolia are nearly half ours; their transport costs are half—they are landing it on the Chinese border for around $80 a tonne. How do we compete with that by, as a government, having our hand in the mining companies' pockets? The MRRT is bad for investment in one of our most important industries. Arguably, this is the worst time to be looking to stick on an additional tax.
A comment was made by the previous speaker as to what the problem was about having a tax if you just let it sit there and no-one is paying it. In theory, that is probably not something that needs to be challenged. The problem, fundamentally, is that you have gone and spent the money that was supposed to be generated. You spoke about the schoolkids bonus and how atrocious it is that we are taking away the schoolkids bonus. All you have done—not through you, Deputy Speaker; I do not impugn the chair—all the Australian Labor Party have done, when they talk about the schoolkids bonus and how we have to look after this generation but as a government had this tax, is shackle our next generation of children to debt.
I will put that into perspective, in terms of when this debt is going to be paid down. The current debt ceiling is $300 billion. We are going to have a look at trying to increase that. If we go back into the history of Australian surpluses on both sides of the House and take the highest surplus we have ever had, for the coalition to emulate the best surplus Australia has ever had, given that the economies of the world are very cyclical, we would have to emulate that record surplus for 18 consecutive years to pay down the $300 billion worth of debt. That is what we would have to do. Talk about the schoolkids bonus and talk about looking after the future of the next generation—the best way we can look after the next generation is to stop shackling them to debt. If it is good debt—investment in ports that create revenue, good debt that builds hospitals—so be it, but not debt that has been wasted and squandered.
Mining is one of the biggest contributors to the Australian economy. This tax has translated to fewer jobs in engineering, retailing, finance, accommodation, travel—in fact, every sector of business. I do not have any mining in my area. I am on the Gold Coast hinterland, going up to the top of the Toowoomba range, and it is predominantly an agriculture and tourism sector. But even though I do not have mining in my sector, things are tough. As a result I have fitters, truck drivers, mining engineers and mining bosses who choose to live in my electorate and fly in, fly out, and the number of people coming to me of late and raising concern about the future of the industry is concerning. They no longer have jobs. Is that completely attributable to the MRRT? It would be irresponsible of me to link those two. However, with the Chinese economy softening, coming off the boil, and the Australian dollar having an impact, taking away our competitive strength in global markets once we hit parity, other levers have had an impact in terms of retarding the industry. Has the mining tax contributed to providing confidence in the sector? Most definitely it has not. Most definitely the mining tax has had a negative confidence effect on investors in this sector.
Evidence of that is the amount of new investment coming into the sector. Evidence of that is the amount of current investment now leaving Australia, going offshore. Ratings agencies out of London are now saying that you can buy money to go and invest in a coal mine more cheaply outside Australia then you can in it and they are citing the sovereign risk issues. As a government we should be hanging our head in shame.
I have got figures here which pertain to the forecast revenues that this bill was supposed to bring in—$26 billion, then $11 billion and then downgraded to $10.6 billion. It was downgraded again in the 2012-13 MYEFO to $9.1 billion. Finally in 2013 in the PEFO documents, it is down to $4.4 billion, generating only $400 million—a disgrace. I keep on bringing it to the fore that when it comes to economic credibility the previous government has shown time and time again that it could not hit the side of a barn with a forecast. It is continually out in nearly every facet by roughly $20 billion.
However, it gets worse. The previous government committed the cardinal sin again of spending the money before they earned it. Small businesses cannot afford to do that. If they do, they put it on an overdraft that becomes an expense. In the same terms, what we have now is an enormous amount of debt, money that has been spent, that is going to be shackled to our next generation. To look after our future generations we need to make sure that they have got jobs and that cost-of-living pressures are low. We need to make sure that they have got great education opportunities and, as a coalition and as a Liberal Party member, I accept the mandate that we have to pursue the repeal of this ridiculous minerals resource rent tax.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:01): I oppose the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 because, quite simply, it is one of the most illogical and short-sighted pieces of economic policy that I have ever seen in my time in the parliament. Australians and their families and, indeed, small businesses are working harder than ever before. They are working longer hours, they feel more under pressure, they are spending less time with their families, and the cost of housing particularly in my electorate is skyrocketing.
The minerals resource rent tax was a carefully crafted piece of policy aimed at not only relieving pressure for families but also delivering a brighter future for our nation. It came about as a result of the Henry tax review, a careful consideration of the balances required for a future taxation system. The Henry tax review determined that some of our large mining companies were earning economic rents. They were earning superprofits from resources that are owned by the Australian people. I must laugh at the former member's comment that these resources are owned by the states. They are not owned by the states at all; they are owned by the people of Australia. The people of Australia own the resources that are in the ground and once you dig them up and once you sell them—predominantly overseas—that economic benefit is lost and it is lost forever. It is not something that can be picked up by the next generation; it is lost forever. That contribution from the former member typically highlights the approach of those opposite to this particular issue and the policy approach that they are taking in repealing this important legislation. This bill is probably the most abysmal, short-sighted piece of policy work that I have witnessed in my time in parliament.
This bill will benefit three large multinational mining companies. Three large multinational mining companies will benefit from the repeal of this legislation, but every single Australian will lose. Every single Australian, except for those three mining companies, will lose under this bill. The great irony is that even those small mining companies that do not have a liability under the minerals resource rent tax, that blindly followed their industry group and were hoodwinked into funding a campaign against the tax, are going to lose. They are going to be worse off. They put their money into a campaign that will make their companies and their shareholders worse off, and they campaigned against the minerals resource rent tax. Incredibly, they paid for a campaign that will make them worse off. It is a laughable irony. It would be comical if it were not so serious: that small mining companies paid for a campaign that makes them worse off, that reduces their profitability. It is incredible. It is laughable.
But what is not laughable is the additional pressure that this decision puts on households and small businesses. The tax breaks and the support for families and small businesses that were funded by the minerals resource rent tax revenue are abolished or put on hold by this government. The minerals resource rent tax and the revenue raised would have funded a number of important progressive policies in our economy—most notably, the increase in compulsory superannuation contributions from nine to 12 per cent.
We have an ageing population. The biggest pressure that is going to come for our economy in the future is not the condition of international relations or the international economy; it is the ageing of our domestic population. At the moment for every 10 people who are over the age of 65 in Australia, there are 52 Australians in the workforce—52 Australians working and paying taxes to fund our social security, our health and our aged-care system. Within the next 40 years that number will almost halve. For every 10 people over the age of 65 in our nation, there will be only 27 Australians in the workforce. That is going to put massive pressure on our social security, on our health care and on our aged-care systems. We must be encouraging Australians to save more and to build up a nest egg to fund their own retirement. That is the philosophy behind the increase in superannuation contributions from 9 to 12 per cent. It is a simple one, a foresighted one, and it is one that was backed by the former Treasurer Peter Costello in the Intergenerational report.
But because of this bill, because of the repeal of the minerals resource rent tax and the lack of that revenue which funded that policy, we are going to see that increase in superannuation payments from nine to 12 per cent delayed. And you can bet your life, Deputy Speaker, that it will not only be delayed; it will never happen. It will never happen under a Liberal government that they will increase compulsory superannuation contributions. When the Howard government came to office in 1996, what did they do? They instituted a Commission of Audit. Does that sound familiar?
Mr Chester interjecting—
Mr THISTLETHWAITE: Does that sound familiar, Parliamentary Secretary? It does, and they are going to do it again—another Commission of Audit. And guess what that Commission of Audit will find? I would not mind putting a few dollars on the fact that the Commission of Audit will find that the increase in superannuation contributions from nine to 12 per cent is unaffordable, and it will not go ahead. It will be stopped by another Liberal government, and the opportunity for us as a nation to plan for the future, to put in place an economic policy that ensures that Australians can save for their own retirements, will be lost again. It will be lost again until a Labor government comes to office.
This policy not only funded the increase in superannuation contributions from nine to 12 per cent; it also funded a raise in the age at which compulsory superannuation contributions cut out. We were increasing that age from 70 to 75, again because of the changing nature of the workforce and the increasing pressure on families to work longer to be able to fund their own retirement. A sensible, foresighted policy again will be lost under this government because of this decision.
I noticed some younger Australians in the parliament earlier, watching from the galleries. They stand to lose quite a bit under this policy because the effect of not increasing compulsory superannuation from nine to 12 per cent is that the average male Australian who is 30 years old, working over the rest of their life, would have had an extra $105,000 in their superannuation account when they retired. So they will end up with $105,000 less in their superannuation account if the increase in superannuation from nine to 12 per cent does not go ahead.
This policy also assisted those on low incomes in Australia. Anyone who was earning less than $37,000 was paid the low-income superannuation contribution, and there was good philosophy behind that policy. It was to ensure that there is an incentive for those low-income earners to remain in the workforce, that they are not crowded out by the effect of welfare payments, in that welfare payments become more attractive than staying in work, because a lot of those people were losing most of their superannuation contributions in taxation. Labor relieved that by introducing the low-income super contribution—gone because of the repeal of this legislation.
Under the original proposal for the minerals resource rent tax, companies would have been better off through a 1½ per cent cut in the company tax rate. Those mining companies that funded that campaign would have had a 1½ per cent cut in their company tax rate had they not taken a negative approach and funded that campaign. They would have also benefited from a resource exploration rebate, which would have refunded some of their costs, those initial lumpy outlays in investment that many burgeoning mining companies have to undertake when they are beginning projects, when they are exploring. They would have got a rebate for that under the original philosophy of the minerals resource rent tax. That was later abandoned; there is no doubt about that. But, again, if it were not for the campaign that they funded, it might not have been the case. So again they did themselves out of some advantages when it came to economic policy.
Small businesses have lost the instant asset write-off, the ability to claim up to $6½ thousand worth of assets and immediately write them off. That was a big boon for many small businesses. I visited a local pub in my electorate last Friday, and I met with the publican. He said, 'Mate, that instant asset write-off is a great piece of public policy,' because it allowed him as a publican to refit all of the refrigerators in his pub with the assistance of the government. That meant that they were emissions friendly, so he was reducing his carbon liability because he was installing cleaner technology in his business. It was supporting the environment, making our environment cleaner, and supporting small businesses and making them more profitable into the future—again lost under the review of this legislation.
It is only three big mining companies that are going to win from the repeal of this legislation, and every other Australian loses. There is no better example of the priorities of those opposite when it comes to economic policies: tax breaks for the big end of town, for the mining companies, for those with superannuation balances over $1 million that are earning a revenue above $100,000. It is beyond me how on earth you can justify that and how you can cut the superannuation tax breaks for those on less than $37,000 and then give a massive tax break to those who have more than $1 million in their super accounts and are earning over $100,000 in revenue from those.
These are resources that are owned by the people of Australia. They are not owned by the states. They are not owned by the mining companies. They are owned by the people of Australia. And these mining companies were earning economic rents from them. It is not unfair for us as a nation, given that these resources do not continue forever and a day, to make a fair return from them and to redistribute some of that revenue to ensure that our economy is sustainable into the future. That is what this policy was all about. It is going to be lost because of the intransigence of those opposite. Imposing a tax increase on 3½ million low-paid workers, 60 per cent of whom are women, through their superannuation accounts in the low-income superannuation contribution is nothing short of scandalous.
Some other speakers from the other side have mentioned royalties and the states imposing royalties. This is the other great irony of this debate. We are going to get rid of a tax which is only paid by companies once they make a profit—above $70 million, I might add. We are not talking insignificant profits here; we are talking about companies that make a profit above $70 million. We are going to get rid of that tax, but we are going to allow states to increase their royalties on those mining companies, not only those that made above $70 million worth of profit but every single one of them, every single mining company, regardless of whether or not they make a profit at all. So here we have a system that we are encouraging by repealing this legislation, in which, if you make a loss as a mining company—you have been working hard all year but you make a loss—you will pay the tax through royalties. You will pay the royalties. What does that do for investment in that particular business? What does that do for job creation in that particular business? That is not exactly government encouraging growth, encouraging exploration and encouraging jobs in that particular industry. It is imposing an inefficient tax.
We propose to replace those inefficient taxes, those royalties that are paid regardless of whether you operate at a profit or not, with a much more efficient tax, one which is paid only once the company earns more than $70 million profit. Yes, for the last year only three mining companies had a liability, but that shows you how fair the tax is. It shows you that only those that are making superprofits, that are making those economic rents identified by Ken Henry, will pay the tax. If you do not make a profit, you do not pay the tax. Those opposite are encouraging a system where if you make a loss you will continue to pay the tax. That is not exactly promoting the interests of business, investment and jobs growth in a very important sector of our economy.
So what do we have? We have a system in which three big mining companies are going to be let off the hook. They are going to pay no taxes under this once it is abolished and every other Australian is going to be worse off. Low-income workers are going to be worse off because the low-income superannuation contribution is removed. Small businesses are going to be worse off because they lose the instant asset write-off. They have lost the opportunity at a reduction in the company tax rate, so those small mining companies that were not even paying the liability for the tax are going to be worse off. Millions of Australians are going to be worse off and three big mining companies are going to be better off. That says everything about the priorities of this government and why this piece of policy, this bill, is so twisted and why I am opposing it.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (13:16): The member for Kingsford Smith, who has just addressed the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013, comes to this place from the Senate. I know he means well. I know that in the Senate they do things differently than we do in the House of Representatives. He talked about investment, jobs creation and growth. What he perhaps does not realise, because he has been in the upper house, is that all we ever saw in this place from his government in the last term and the term before that was wrecking and vandalism of investment, jobs creation and growth. His party, which sat on the treasury bench, did everything they could to stunt growth, to rid particularly rural and regional Australia of jobs and to drive investment overseas. The MRRT sent a message to overseas companies—and the Nationals are in favour of good foreign investment—and so much potentially good foreign investment was driven to countries such as those in Africa because Australia's wealth creation ability was put at risk by the Labor government. Shame on them for doing so!
The minerals resource rent tax was flawed from the outset. From its inception in the final days of the first tenure of the member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, at the helm of the Labor government, the MRRT was poorly implemented. It was a haphazard policy. We all know that. Labor know that. They understand it but for political reasons they are now pushing to stop us from carrying out our mandate. We went to the 7 September election seeking a mandate to repeal the carbon tax—and Labor is all against that—and to repeal the mining tax—and Labor is all against that. We need to get on with the job of removing the debt and the deficit that Labor has saddled this country with. The member for Canberra is nodding. She understands that that is what we are about and that is what this country needs. It is desperate for us to get rid of the mess that Labor has placed us in.
For this reason the coalition are now keeping our promise. That will be news to Labor, who do not keep their promises. We on this side, on the coalition side, do keep our promises to the Australian people. We will abolish the mining tax and get rid of the toxic carbon tax and put downward pressure on the costs of living for average Australians, Mr and Mrs Average, families, small businesses, medium-sized businesses and large businesses. Do you know what the definition of a 'small business' is, Member for Gippsland?
Mr Chester: No. What?
Mr McCORMACK: A small business is what a medium- to large-sized business was before Labor came to power. Now, because of everything Labor has done, those businesses have turned into small businesses. We do know that good small businesses are the engine room of the Australian economy. Unfortunately, under Labor they have been saddled with so much debt.
We all remember that it was the mining tax in its first form that brought down the prime ministership of the member for Griffith. We all know that. On 23 June 2010 he was tapped on the shoulder. The mining tax was a huge issue. That was one of the critical significant factors that brought about the end of the first tenure of the member for Griffith. In typical Rudd government style the mining tax was a thought bubble, designed probably on the back of an envelope and implemented for a headline without due consideration to the ramifications of its implementation. So rushed was this policy that the mining sector mounted a successful campaign for change. It, along with many other factors, brought down a Prime Minister. Even when the member for Lalor, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard, negotiated the MRRT, it was still a flawed model that had a flawed outcome for the Australian economy—an outcome that meant that investment was going to be smaller and that meant it was going to cost jobs, security and safety for Australian businesses, certainly Australian mining companies and those mining companies that wanted to invest in Australia.
Despite Labor's talking points saying that the MRRT was about Australians reaping the benefits of our natural wealth, the MRRT allowed the nation's three biggest mining companies to write their own law. It was a rushed policy for the sake of a headline. We all know that Labor were very conscious to make sure that they got good headlines and good press. That, along with GetUp! and all the social media outlets, was what was ruling this country. It was not Labor; it was what the media wanted and what Labor wanted to get out in the media and the social media.
The MRRT disadvantaged what I will call the junior miners—the small businesses, such as the Lake Cowal goldmine near West Wyalong in my electorate in the north-west of the Riverina—and allowed the big miners' profits to continue to grow. This sent a message to the rest of the world, like most of the Labor Party's policy initiatives, that the Labor government was more interested in a news grab than it was in sensible, methodical or strategic governance—and isn't that so true of the Labor government?
That is why it was not surprising to the coalition that in late October last year, the MRRT, the key policy of the Labor Party, which was about sharing the wealth and investing in the regions which produce that wealth—and there is nothing wrong with that—had raised a mere fraction, a smidgen, of what was initially promised. No rivers of gold; no promised dividend from our important national resources; no budget surplus on time as promised. But we all know this landmark policy that Prime Minister Gillard and the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, told this parliament on so many occasions was supposed to deliver a budget surplus on time as promised was a fallacy. It was flawed policy from the start; that announcement just proved Labor's lack of policy nous.
Unfortunately, the Labor announcements for the sake of headlines did not stop there. Rural and regional members in this place will be well aware that the Regional Development Australia Fund, or RDAF, which was supposed to fund projects in our electorates, including many in the Riverina, was entirely reliant on revenue from the mining tax. I know that in the Riverina $3.2 million in federal funding was promised, and the 13 local government areas that I represent were told that if they got their applications in there would be all sorts of projects that they could fund. I know Wagga Wagga City Council was promised $668,888, and it went right down to Murrumbidgee shire with $123,664. The other 11 local government areas in my electorate were also all promised things in RDAF round 5, which became A. Then the regional development minister, the member for Ballarat, came into my electorate on the Monday of election week and promised half a million dollars for post school options at Griffith, as well as a youth outreach service for Narrandera and five trade training centres. Now I am certainly all in favour of trade training centres; I think they are fabulous. I think this parliament needs to recognise that a trade certificate is just as important, just as valuable, as a tertiary qualification, a degree. Both sides of this parliament have probably not recognised the fact that we need more electricians, more plumbers, more people who have trade qualifications, and that those qualifications are every bit as important as having letters after your name.
Certainly I am very much in favour of these trade training centres. In fact I opened a hospitality trade training centre at Gundagai High School just the other day. They were very much impressed with the facility they had, and I will acknowledge that that money was probably from a Labor government. I am all in favour of trade training centres, but we have upset so many of the other schools that Labor promised it would deliver trade training centres to. I can name them: Batlow Technology School, Tumbarumba High School, Ardlethan Central School, Barellan Central School and Ariah Park Central School. And you could probably throw Temora High School into the mix there as well. They are good schools and they are good kids and they deserve every bit of success, but so many of these projects that Labor promised were not delivered because there was no money there. There were no rivers of gold from the MRRT. Labor came out and said, 'Look, we're going to fund all these projects', but there was never any funding there. Labor promised; it said: 'It's already allocated in the budget. It's already there. The money's good.' But it was not good because it was reliant on a flawed tax, and there was no money—there was never any money.
As far as the RDA funding is concerned, the scheme was supposed to go to financial year 2017-18, and yet as of the 2013-14 financial year all the money has just about been allocated. Labor are carrying on about funding their promises—we are expected, now we have come into government, to fund all Labor's promises—when they did not even intend to fund them themselves! There was no money to do it, so I do not know exactly how they were going to fund all of these projects!
Nobody criticises the projects in the 13 local government areas I represent. Certainly the trade training centres throughout the schools I represent, and certainly the Griffith post-school options for disabled people and their families who really desperately need that care and those options for after-school training and initiatives, and certainly the youth outreach centre at Narrandera—I am really angry about it because they are good services, but we cannot fund them because there is no money there. Labor has absolutely spent the lot. That is also why we have to raise the debt level ceiling, because we cannot continue to spend what is not there.
Riverina families understand it; Riverina businesses understand it: you cannot keep spending money that you do not have. Anybody who has ever been in business, anybody who has ever had to put in a BAS, anybody who has ever had to make sure that they feed their families knows that you cannot spend more money than you earn. The trouble is that when you looked across to the opposite side—and I looked at them in the last parliament when the numbers were very even—you could see people who had not been in business. They were all from the union sector. There is nothing wrong with that. I was in a union myself once upon a time, for 21 years, which is probably longer than many of the Labor members; I was in a union myself, so I recognise the role they play. But I was also in business; I ran a business for eight years. It was tough work; it was really hard work.
Ms Brodtmann interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: The member for Canberra says that she ran a business for 10 years, and good on her. I am sure it was highly profitable. But I am sure the member for Canberra would not have spent more money than she earned because, if she had, she would have been out of business; if she had, she would have been out of a home; if she had, she would not have been able to feed herself—and that is the critical thing. You cannot keep spending more money than you earn. The whole problem with the MRRT was that it never raised the money, the rivers of gold, that Labor said it would, that Labor promised it would. But we all know that Labor promises are always empty. They never deliver on what they say they are going to do, and it is such a shame.
In his farewell speech last week, the member for Griffith said that politics is all about power. Unfortunately, we have seen for the past three years particularly, and probably going back over the last six, that for Labor politics was all about power. But it should not be about power; politics is about people. The people of Australia matter and they need to know that they are going to have a good, sensible, methodical, adult government. That is why, on 7 September—the last time I looked the election result was 90 seats to the coalition, 55 to Labor, one Green, one PUP, one Katter Party and two Independents, so that makes it 90 to 55.
The people of Australia have spoken. They gave us the mandate to repeal the carbon tax. Yet that side is fighting so hard and so desperately and using all sorts of excuses to stop that mandate that we have got, both here and blocking it in the Senate, which is just mischievous. I think a Prime Minister once called it 'unrepresentative swill'; I wouldn't be so unkind as to call it that, but in some ways Paul Keating was right. He was probably standing right here where I am now when he made that comment. We have been given a mandate to repeal the carbon tax. We have been given a mandate to absolutely repeal the mining tax—and we will do it, because that is what the Australian people want us to do. That is what the Australian people said when they went to the ballot box on 7 September.
The member for Canberra knows that, the member for Throsby understands that, and the member for Kennedy understands it. They know that this government was put into place to get rid of that toxic carbon tax. They know that this coalition government—this Liberal-National government, this Tony Abbott-Warren Truss government—was put into place to absolutely get rid of the mining tax. Because politics is about people. It is about serving the people who elect us to do the best of our abilities. Keeping the promises we make to the Australian people is at the heart of everything we will do over this term of government of the 44th Parliament.
It is why we are moving to abolish this mining tax today—a national mining tax which, for all its promises, for everything Labor said it would do, it never did because it was a flawed policy. It never realised and reaped the benefits that Labor said it would. That is so typical of Labor—they go out there, they try and sell something, they half do it and they cock it up. That is why the people spoke on 7 September, that is why the people have put us into government and that is why we will get rid of this dreadful mining tax.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (13:31): I sit under a large picture of John McEwen. For those of you who have had the intelligence and intellectual curiosity to read my history of Australia you will see the pivotal role that McEwen played in the history of this country. No sooner had Bob Menzies become Prime Minister for the second time than he announced a revaluation of the pound. Jack McEwen two days later announced a devaluation of the pound. He was not leader of the Country Party in those days, but I think he was titular leader of the Country Party. Two weeks later the pound was devalued. In the first trial of strength Jack McEwen proved to be the person that was the more powerful one in the governing of Australia.
The party that I represent proudly carries the banner handed down from those people. We are the only party that carries that banner. The party that I represent has a direct line back to the Country Party that three times brought down the government by taking a stand for the people that they represented. On two occasions, I would argue, that was a battle over revaluation or devaluation. The National Party in this place sat back supinely and did nothing about the dollar being driven up by Peter Costello from 52c to over 90c, which halved the income for every single mining company in Australia. They had their income halved because the dollar had doubled in value. I hope the members of the opposition are not preening themselves, because that mob had 12 years and the ALP only had six years. But they were able to drive it up another 50 per cent in the six years that they were there, leaving, of course, mining on its knees in Australia.
Another body blow was the mining tax. I would agree with the previous speakers on the government side in saying that it had a disastrous and unexpected—in fairness to the government of the day—consequence. The Ernest Henry mine in Cloncurry—one of the four or five biggest copper mines in the country—immediately closed. The Treasurer, quite rightly, said, 'They're playing games,' and I quite rightly pointed out that it was not a marginal operation; it was a less than marginal operation. It was kept going to ensure the copper stream at Mount Isa kept going. If you cut off Cloncurry there is a question mark hanging over your copper operations in Mount Isa. Therein lay the very real, immediate and cold face problem that was created by the mining tax. I thank people in the two major unions, the AWU and the CFMEU in this area, who exerted tremendous pressure. I regret, obviously, that that pressure resulted in Kevin Rudd being thrown out as Prime Minister of Australia.
There is a curiosity in Australia. The newspapers and the media say, 'We have a trade surplus. Isn't this wonderful.' Well, it is. I would love my country always to have a trade surplus, and we really haven't had one for about 40 years—certainly 30 years. So this trade surplus is a magnificent breakthrough. But I would be far more interested in a current account surplus. I don't think anyone has ever heard that phrase before—'current account surplus'. We have a massive current account deficit. In fact, this country, every year, becomes five per cent poorer—in the money going out and the money coming in there is a five per cent deficit. So each year Australia becomes poorer. If you are a person operating a business, the business is going backwards if each year you are making a five per cent loss. That is the situation in Australia. Each year we make a five per cent loss. The debt is just accumulating: worse and worse and worse, the greater the pile of debt.
Our curiosity should be piqued. How can you can have a trade surplus but a current account deficit? The trade surplus comes from the massive increase in coal and iron ore sales overseas—and now, to some degree, gas. I might mention aluminium, copper, silver, lead and zinc. But the massive production in these areas has resulted in us getting a trade surplus. Agriculture counts for nothing. In 1990 the world's greatest treasurer, Mr Keating, deregulated the wool industry. Wool was bigger than coal, but Mr Keating—with his clever deregulation, which was followed by the LNP, who deregulated every other industry in Australia—completely wrecked the wool industry, as you would be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott.
Why have we got this current account deficit when we have this huge amount of money in from coal, iron ore, gold, aluminium and gas? It is because it is all foreign owned. The money comes into Australia and then just boomerangs back out again, because we do not own BHP. There are those who will argue that we still have an Australian majority shareholding. I would argue that we do not. In any event, BHP in many areas is in partnership with other people, and that most certainly waters down any Australian ownership. We can thank Marius Kloppers, I think, for keeping BHP in Australia, but I do not know for how much longer. Mount Isa Mines was Australian owned; BHP was Australian owned; Western Mining Corporation was Australian owned; Normandy was Australian owned; and CRA, whilst it was not Australian owned, most certainly was an Australian-run company. CRA now does not exist: Conzinc Riotinto Australia is now Rio Tinto, a foreign-owned corporation; Normandy has broken up and is completely foreign owned; Western Mining Corporation has broken up and is completely foreign owned; Mount Isa Mines is completely foreign owned; and BHP is predominantly foreign owned. But 83 per cent of the mineral resources of this country are now foreign owned. So if you want to look for the answer as to why our current account deficit is the way that it is—each year the country is bleeding $50,000 million or $60,000 million—each and every year. To put that in perspective, when the much-maligned Fraser government left office, I think the current account deficit was around $2,000 million or $3,000 million. I say 'much maligned' because I think it was a very unfairly maligned government. They held the dollar on restraint and they restricted down the value of the dollar. God bless them.
The current account will get worse and worse and worse, because Australia does not own anything. We do not own any of the dairy factories. We do not own any of the sugar mills. We do not own any of the mining companies. We do not own any of the gas resources. What the hell do we own? What is left in this country that we do own? I think it is just very, very little. The reason for the current account is: we are a country that is completely out of step with the rest of the world. I enjoy coming into this place so much because I can say, 'Yes, I am out of step with everybody in this place'—there is no doubt about that—but I happen to be in step with the rest of the world. The rest of the world has interest rates of 0.2 per cent. The OECD average for the last three years, the last time I looked, was 0.2 per cent. The last time I looked we were on 2.7 per cent. If you are on 2.7 and the rest of the world is on 0.2, everyone is going to be putting their money into Australian dollars. And when they do, the dollar goes through the roof. You do not have to be Albert Einstein to work this out. That has been the death knell of agriculture in this country. Very few people are aware that we are not a mining country anymore. A mining country is a country that digs it up out of the ground and sells the metal. We are not a mining country; we do not do that. We dig it out of the ground and we sell the ground. We are a quarrying country. There is a huge difference.
I worked in the lead smelter at Mount Isa mines, and there were many more people working in the processing plant than working underground. So the mining part of it—or the quarrying part if you like—was small compared with the processing element. And the processing element is lost to us. The cost of gas is one thing. Fertiliser manufacturer Incitec are watching their gas prices go from $2 to $3 to $9.50. It is a diammonium phosphate plant. Ammonia is what you get from gas, and gas prices have gone up 300 per cent in the space of two years. Things are going to be very, very difficult for them. We saw the stupidity of the ALP government in Queensland in putting a gas-fired power station into Mount Isa to supply all of our mines, and our great fertiliser plant, the biggest in Australia at Mount Isa Mines—to put them on gas-fired electricity has put the price through the roof. In any event, the reason that we secured the aluminium industry in Australia was that the Queensland government built the biggest power station in the world at Gladstone. It is state of the art, state of the technology, and the biggest, giving economies of scale. But the important issue was that it was fuelled on free coal. We had a reserve resource policy.
I would plead with the current government to do what the Western Australian Liberal government has done and have a reserve resource policy with gas so that they can have cheap electricity. When we had the supercheap electricity in Queensland, we got the aluminium industry. Tasmania did the same with the hydroelectricity. We had supercheap electricity, so we got an aluminium industry.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Kennedy will have leave to continue his remarks should he wish to do so.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Camp Quality
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:45): Despite the heavy rain last weekend, 6,000 people lined the streets of the Illawarra, waving banners and cheering on the 755 trucks and 860 motorbikes taking part in the annual Camp Quality Convoy fundraiser. Starting at Illawarra Coal's West Cliff Colliery on Appin Rd, the trucks and bikes follow a route down the mountain, through southern Illawarra and finish at Croome Road in Albion Park Rail in my electorate of Throsby.
The convoy is now in its ninth year and has raised more than $4 million dollars over this time. This sum includes public donations; however, the majority of the money is raised through competitive bidding wars between local companies for the privilege of being the lead vehicle in the pack of over a thousand.
The event generated over $1 million dollars last year alone, but it looks to eclipse this record in 2013, with the lead truck from Coastal Windows in Albion Park donating a whopping $114,000. All proceeds go to Camp Quality, who help more than one in three kids battling cancer in Australia. These are kids like seven-year-old Ruby Marriott, who lives in Mount Warrigal, in my electorate of Throsby. Ruby has been battling leukaemia since she was 4½. Fortunately, she is now in remission but will never forget the fun and games and ability to make her feel 'normal' that Camp Quality gave her during some of her toughest hours.
I commend the generosity of the Illawarra community and local initiatives like the convoy—without which, charities like Camp Quality could not keep providing services for children like Ruby.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:46): The best and brightest of the Territory's business community were on display at the recent Northern Territory Export and Industry Awards. The awards showcased Territory innovation and proved once again the capacity of Territory businesses to match it with the best in the country. Not only do Territory export businesses provide much-needed private sector jobs for Territorians; they also bring valuable export dollars into the national economy.
The honour of being Territory Exporter of the Year went to SRA Information Technology, through its award-winning web-based EnviroSys system which provides businesses with crucial environmental data. EnviroSys is used by multinational businesses such as BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. Since entering the global market in 2008, SRA has established offices in Singapore and Texas. It also has business development teams located in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, South Africa and Singapore—not bad for a Territory based company.
SRA also won the Environmental Solutions Award category. Other category winners were: Monsoon Aquatics, which won the Agribusiness Award; CAT Projects won the Regional Exporter Award; International College of Advanced Education won the Small Business Award; AirNorth won the Minerals and Energy Award; and Charles Darwin University—a fantastic establishment in the Northern Territory—won the Education and Training Award.
My congratulations go to all these wonderful businesses, and I wish them the best of luck for the 51st Australian Export Awards in Melbourne on 26 November.
Defence Personnel
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:48): Members will be aware by now, I hope, of my concerns over the government's planned mass Public Service job cuts, and how they are going to affect my electorate of Canberra. One area that I am particularly concerned about is Defence. There are around 10,000 Defence staff based in Canberra, and they make up a significant part of the Canberra workforce, and contribute significantly to the Canberra economy. I was particularly concerned, therefore, when the Minister for Defence, the Hon. Senator Johnston, commented on 7 October that the Department of Defence is 'too heavy' and needs to be 'trimmed'. These comments have left Defence employees—particularly civilians—nervous and fearful of losing their jobs.
Understandably, employees—particularly civilians—of the department would like to know what these comments will mean for them. How does he plan on 'trimming' the department? How much does he intend to trim? Are these part of the $5.2 billion worth of Public Service job cuts promised by Prime Minister Abbott prior to the election, or are they additional cuts? How are jobs going to be cut—only through natural attrition, as promised prior to the election, or can we expect to see redundancies?
The government has shown its disdain for Canberra by its promise to cut at least $5.2 billion worth of Public Service jobs. The least it could now do is provide Defence employees, particularly civilians, with details of its plans.
Shop Small Campaign
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (13:49): I congratulate the Minister for Small Business for supporting the Shop Small campaign. This fabulous initiative encourages people to support local small retailers. I believe local jobs start with local business, and local business needs local support to help grow and prosper.
Penrith City Council is doing their bit to help local businesses by introducing a 'pop-up park' to boost economic activity in the CBD. Gai Hawthorn and Owen Rogers from the Penrith CBD Corporation have instigated a business improvement program to help reinvigorate the central business district. In St Marys, Steve Perry, his board and the local business owners are improving shop facades and signage to once again re-establish Queen Street as a vibrant shopping district.
There are a lot of fabulous small and family businesses in Lindsay which make a positive contribution to the local community. For instance: John Schuback on High Street, Penrith, has been running a local newsagency for as long as papers have been printed; Zokoko on Old Bathurst Road, Emu Heights, make the best boutique chocolates and their Morgan's Coffee range is outstanding; and Montecatini on Robertson Place, Penrith, use quality Australian pork to create a range of gourmet smallgoods as if it was straight out of a small cafe in Tuscany.
I urge everyone to 'shop small' this Christmas to support their local community.
Westmead Hospital
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:51): Last week a wonderful institution in my electorate, the Westmead Hospital, celebrated its 35th birthday. It was opened on 10 November 1978, four years after Gough Whitlam set aside money for the teaching hospital in 1974.
It is the largest medical campus in the Southern Hemisphere. It is a hospital whose reputation is so good locally that people have moved into the suburb of Westmead in order to be close to it, particularly when they have young children. The birthing unit alone has delivered a total of 148,236 babies since 1979 to September 2013—almost the entire population of my electorate of Parramatta now. It operates one of the busiest emergency departments in the state, treating more than 60,000 patients in the past year. If you are unlucky enough to be in an accident, you are very lucky if you are close to Westmead Hospital.
When the hospital opened in 1979, there were only two wards. Now there are 40 wards with 19 operating theatres. It has the largest dental clinical school in the state. Again, Westmead Hospital is an extraordinary institution that I visit on a regular basis. In 2012-13 alone it had more than 92,000 admissions. Happy birthday to the Westmead Hospital. We are very lucky to have it in our electorate.
Deakin Electorate
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:52): I would like to take this opportunity today to recognise an exciting event taking place in my electorate of Deakin, the opening of Costco at Ringwood. The opening of Costco represents years of hard work and is an excellent regeneration of the former Ringwood market site. During its construction stage, the approximately $60-million redevelopment created more than 100 direct jobs and 160 flow-on jobs. The opportunities for ongoing employment will mean 400 ongoing jobs.
The location of the Costco store also recognises Ringwood's unique location with easy access from EastLink, which will be further be enhanced by the coalition's commitment to build the East West Link. This is another reason why our important $1.5 billion commitment to the East West Link will further enhance Ringwood.
Another encouraging aspect of the redevelopment is that it will offer even further choice to our local consumers and provide additional competition to the established supermarket giants. The Shop Small campaign, which was launched in Deakin two weeks ago, will continue this Saturday and I encourage all Deakin residents to shop small this week.
Kennedy Electorate: Cattle Industry
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (13:54): The last person I spoke to my in electorate yesterday called about a matter of an aeroplane accident and evacuation. Before I left the telephone, he said: 'By the way, by June next year I will be sold up. I will be bankrupted and I believe four of my nine neighbours will go as well.' They have got no money to feed their cattle. I would estimate that maybe 10,000 to 15,000 head of cattle are dying every week now.
In this place we will cry and howl about whales. We will cry and howl about saving some animal out there but we will not worry about a couple of hundred thousand cattle that are going to die very cruelly from malnutrition and starvation because their owners have no money to buy supplementary feed, which is necessary to keep them alive during this time of the year. I would not have to tell you, Deputy Speaker Scott, what the ramifications are of people going out there with a gun to shoot their cattle and the dangers that involves.
The other phone number I have there on my desk to ring is another cattleman whose son committed suicide two months ago. The government of Australia has given us not one single cent. There was $20 million moved from cattle people over there effectively to cattle people over here. In sharp contrast, the state government gave us $80 million in grants and $300 million in two per cent loans when the sugar industry was in trouble.
Corangamite Electorate: Robotics
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:55): On Wednesday 6 November I had the pleasure of visiting Trinity College in Colac in my electorate to congratulate the school's robotics team on qualifying for the 2014 robotics world championships in Moscow. Two Trinity College teams will join teams from Germany, Malaysia, America, China, Saudi Arabia and many more at the world championships in November next year.
It is a tremendous honour to represent this great country on the world stage, and the students should be very proud of their achievements. I also want to congratulate the Trinity students for placing eighth at the 2013 robotics world championships in Jakarta last week. They lost to a Russian team, which went on to place second overall. The dedicated robotics coach, John Sturm, and the students are a credit to their school, to their community and to Australia and they are an inspiration to others around them. This is a great celebration of achievement in science, research and science teaching.
Griffith University
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (13:57): I rise to congratulate the local campus of Griffith University on an important initiative they are undertaking today, tomorrow and Friday, which is called the Launch into Life at Logan program. It gets kids from grade 6 from right throughout my electorate, from throughout the broader Logan community, and teaches them about a future at university. I am very proud to represent an area which values community input. This program does so much to go to the schools, find kids from low socio-economic areas and encourage them to go to university at Griffith.
Throsby Electorate: Soccer
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:58): I would like to take this opportunity to raise my concerns about the home of soccer in the Illawarra. Soccer is the most popular sport in the Illawarra and the Illawarra has been a nursery ground for national and international champions, both men and women, within the sport. In recognition of this depth of strength in the region, I worked very closely with Football South Coast and RDA Illawarra together with the member for Grayndler and the member for Ballarat to ensure that there was funding available for a new home for soccer in the Illawarra. In the 2013-14 budget, $7.5 million was set aside to get halfway towards building the new $15-million facility. It would be a world class all-weather pitch with training facilities for youngsters, a club house, parking facilities and new grandstands, thereby dragging the Illawarra and its soccer playing facilities well into the 21st century.
Unfortunately, we know that there is now a big cloud over the future of this facility. I call on members of the government and members of the Liberal Party to get behind this important project to ensure that the young kids in the Illawarra and the future champions from the Illawarra have the opportunity to play on the sorts of facilities that are available to soccer players in capital cities right around the country. I urge members opposite to support this important facility.
Labor Government
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (13:59): Last night this House was subjected to two lectures from the members for McMahon and Jagajaga about values yet they failed to reflect on the sorts of values shown by the former government in cutting benefits to single mothers, squandering the surplus they inherited after 12 years of prudent management, dismantling our border protection system thereby— (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Order! It being two o'clock, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Security
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister: can the Prime Minister please advise the parliament what progress has been made to restore Australia's relationship with Indonesia since his statement?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): This is a serious matter and it is a serious question from the Leader of the Opposition. As I said yesterday, I deeply and sincerely regret the embarrassment that media reports have caused to President Yudhoyono who is a very good friend of Australia—perhaps one of the very best friends that Australia has anywhere in the world. I do understand how personally hurtful these allegations, these reports, have been for him and his family.
I do note that there have been allegations and even admissions in the past on this subject. People did not overreact then and I certainly do not propose to overreact now. My intention, notwithstanding the difficulties of these days, is to do everything I reasonably can to help to build and strengthen the relationship with Indonesia which is so important for both our countries.
Carbon Pricing
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister: I refer the Prime Minister to the government's plan to abolish the carbon tax. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what impact this will have on costs for small business in my electorate of Eden-Monaro and jobs in trade-exposed industries around Australia?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:02): I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for his question and I congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech yesterday. The carbon tax certainly is hurting businesses and costing jobs right around Australia, particularly in the small businesses of which the member spoke so eloquently yesterday.
Over the past year I have visited at least 80 businesses right around our country that are being hurt by the carbon tax, including quite a few in his electorate of Eden-Monaro, such as ACT Steelworks, a small business which is going to be thousands of dollars a year worse off because of the carbon tax.
In every single one of those businesses right around the country, the workers of Australia have had a very simple message: axe the tax—axe the tax which is making their jobs less secure and hurting their prospects of future employment.
So the good news is that the government has been elected to do just that: to axe the tax. The bad news is that members opposite are still in denial, which raises a question: just who are the real friends of the workers of this country? Is it the party who wants to take taxes off them and improve their job security or is it the party that thinks that what the workers of Australia need is just more taxes?
Under members opposite, unemployment queues lengthened by 200,000, because this was a government that just did not get it when it came to the economy. Under the former coalition government we had two million new jobs created, and that is precisely the record that this government is determined to emulate.
It is very clear exactly what the situation is here: the former government left a mess; the new government has been elected to fix it. We are fixing up the mess, and it is high time that members opposite got out of the way of the repair job that this country so desperately needs.
Russell, Mr Colin
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister: Prime Minister, noting that citizens of New Zealand, Finland, France, Italy, Argentina, Poland and Canada have been granted bail in Russia while the pretrial detention of Australian Colin Russell has been extended to five months, what diplomatic measures is the government taking to help secure release on bail for Mr Russell?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:05): We offer consular assistance to all of our citizens in trouble abroad, but what never helps our people in trouble abroad is public comment on their cases.
Mining
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (14:06): My question is to the Treasurer: I refer the Treasurer to the government's plan to abolish the mining tax. Will the Treasurer tell the House what consequences will flow from the repeal for the 3,800 constituents in my electorate who are directly employed by the mining industry?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:06): I thank the honourable member and recognise what a magnificent contribution the mining industry makes to his electorate and the people of South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and Victoria—I am not sure about the ACT. There are 270,000 people directly employed in the mining industry in Australia and over 800,000 other Australians rely on the mining industry for related employment.
It is hugely important for the generation of wealth right across the nation, representing around 55 per cent of merchandise exports from Australia. Yet it is 10 per cent of GDP. So the mining industry is hugely important. It helped, unquestionably, to get us through the challenging times of the global financial crisis—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: Well, I can tell you, it wasn't old Swanee who got us through; it was a hell of a lot of iron ore that went out the door. The member for Lilley and the member for Griffith, what did they do? They wanted to tax it. As the member for Lilley said, 'It was a historic reform to tax the mining industry.' Damn right it was, because, and I quote him:
We brought a superprofits tax in precisely at the time the superprofits disappeared.
That is another great 'Swanism'. The fact is: the mining tax actually leaves the budget worse off. I know it is very hard for our friends in the Greens to understand this. I heard the member for Melbourne this morning on the doors and I nearly choked on my Weeties. I only have three Weeties these days—
A government member interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: Three small ones. I heard the member for Melbourne say, 'We need to have a mining tax to generate all that revenue to get the debt down.' The problem is that the mining tax actually does not benefit the budget; it costs the budget $13½ billion. Here is an interesting concept for the member for Melbourne and the members of the Labor Party. If you have only this much revenue and you have this much expenditure against it, you leave the budget worse off. The mining tax leaves the budget $13½ billion worse off. So the best thing that the Labor Party and their mates in the Greens could do—sorry, their mate in the Greens—would be to get rid of the damn mining tax and let the mining industry get on with the job.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:09): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Given that Lieutenant General Angus Campbell was able to provide the answer last night that no Indonesian boats have been purchased by the government, why was the minister unable to provide that answer in question time last week?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:10): The member for Corio has asked me about paying for boats. The Australian people have had to pay more than $11.6 billion in budget blow-outs because of the former government's border protection failures, 800 boats with more than 50,000 people who came on—
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister for immigration should be directed to be directly relevant to the question. The question was not about cost; it was how many.
The SPEAKER: That may well be the interpretation of the member for Isaacs, but the question did involve cost.
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, on the point of order. Yesterday, we had an example of you reinterpreting a question. This is a point of order—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He is reflecting on the chair.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on the point of order exchange that has just occurred: the question that was asked by the member for Corio was very broad. If the opposition want to ask specific questions, they will then be able to take the point of order on direct relevance. But while they insist on having very broad questions, this will be the outcome.
The SPEAKER: We might do something unusual and ask the member to repeat his question and I will listen very attentively for the content.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:12): The question I asked to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection was: given that Lieutenant General Angus Campbell was able to provide the answer last night that no Indonesian boats have been purchased by the government, why was the minister unable to provide that answer in question time last week?
The SPEAKER: I will give the minister the call in a moment. I would add: it did talk about a question of purchase. Nonetheless, I would ask the minister to be pertinent to the question.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:12): The question went to the purchasing of boats. The cost of purchasing the more than 800 boat arrivals that happened under their government's watch, the more than 50,000 people—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta will desist.
Mr MORRISON: cost the Australian taxpayer more than $11 billion.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: given the question was asked twice, I am not sure whether I can still take a point on direct relevance.
The SPEAKER: No, you cannot.
Mr Burke: Then, can he just please be it.
Mr MORRISON: This government is seeking to reverse those failures of the previous government and we are making progress on reversing the chronic border failures of the previous government with a 75 per cent reduction in illegal arrivals by boat since the commencement of Operation Sovereign Borders. The Australian people who got rid of the previous government for those border failures, for the $11.6 billion of budget blow-outs because of those failures, expect us and can rely on us to have available and to implement all of the arsenal of measures that are needed to stop the boats. We will hold the line on this. We will stop the boats. We are stopping the boats. We were elected to do that and that is what we are doing.
Tasmania: Freight
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the cost of getting people, vehicles and freight in and out of Tasmania is a very significant brake on our economic development. The cost of Bass Strait is also one of the easiest problems to fix, making the current situation all the more frustrating. Prime Minister, will you commit to a single and effective cost equalisation scheme for Tasmania covering all vehicles, passengers and freight, including exports bound for international markets?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:14): I do thank the member for Denison for his question. It is a very important subject.
On the freight equalisation scheme, let me remind the member that the Fraser government created it, the Howard government improved it and the current government will retain it and improve it. To that end, we are shortly going to announce a joint Productivity Commission-ACCC inquiry into improving the freight arrangements between Tasmania and the mainland and the wider world.
But the member is absolutely right: there have been considerable brakes on development in Tasmania. One brake on development in Tasmania was the Labor-Green government in Canberra, now gone. The other brake on development in Tasmania is the Labor-Green government in Hobart which, hopefully, will be gone after March of next year.
But there have been very serious economic issues in Tasmania. I regret to say that Tasmania has our nation's highest unemployment, it has our lowest wages and it has our lowest rate of educational attainment, and this is why the government has a plan for Tasmania. The centrepiece of the plan for Tasmania is $400 million to upgrade the Midland Highway, $38 million to upgrade the airport at Hobart—an initiative that I know had the strong support of the member for Denison—and $24 million dollars to create a world-class Antarctic research centre in Hobart. We are doing what is needed to restore the Tasmanian economy, because Tasmania needs to be an economy as well as just a national park.
That is what Tasmania needs, and the people of Tasmania understand that. That is why there was such a massive swing at the recent election, to give us—with a 13 per cent swing—a new member for Lyons, and with swings of almost the same magnitude new members for Bass and for Braddon. I say to the member for Denison: you work together with these three great new members and the four of you will do a very good job by the great state of Tasmania.
Mr Wilkie: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: There are no supplementary questions, Member for Denison.
Mr Wilkie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, on relevance. I think it would be relevant—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has finished his answer, I understand.
Mr Wilkie: Madam Speaker, I thought I jumped before the Prime Minister finished speaking, if you do not mind.
The SPEAKER: I am afraid you didn't. Good try, Member for Denison.
Child Care
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (14:17): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. Can the minister outline to the House all the financial and regulatory burdens that have impacted on the childcare sector in the last year and a half under the former government?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:17): I am delighted to take a question from my friend the member for MacPherson, I think the first female engineer to graduate from Queensland University of Technology—a female engineer who clearly understands the building and construction task ahead of us as we enter government.
I enjoyed visiting the member for McPherson's electorate on a previous occasion and talking to two childcare centres, one located at Currumbin and one at Burleigh Heads, looking after 130 children. The operator mentioned that his electricity costs have increased directly by $1,000 a year per centre as a result of the carbon tax. So every time somebody turns on the light in those childcare centres, turns on the dishwasher, turns on the oven to cook the patty cakes, goes out in the garden, opens the fridge to get out the juices for play lunch, turns on the tap—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order on my left!
Ms LEY: turns on the tap to have water pouring in the back garden or even takes delivery of the soft fall in the playground, that is a carbon tax on every stage of the process.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for McMahon!
Ms LEY: Childcare centres are not big polluters, not big polluters at all, but they bear, and they continue to bear, the cost of Labor's carbon tax, running as they do on wafer-thin margins. At the end of the line there is only one place these centres are going, and that is to the parents of Australia to raise childcare fees and costs, which is what we have seen under six years of Labor.
The shadow minister stepped up, obviously feeling a bit tetchy about this, and made a personal explanation yesterday, in response to my comment that childcare costs were going up by only 57 cents a week. She said, 'Oh, that was a report. I read that in a report and that's why I said it.' What this shadow minister should have done and what members of the opposition should have done during her time is actually visit the childcare centres and facilities in their electorates and talk to the people who work in child care every day, and understand the real 44 per cent increase that is the reality about the increase in costs.
We are surrounded by red tape and regulation and, Member for McPherson, I look forward to your constituents telling us what we can do to improve the amount of red tape. I have my friend the member for Kooyong in evangelical mode, corralling ministers and demanding to know where their red-tape dollars lie. I will certainly be providing the information to him, because there are numerous examples of how costs are increasing beyond the scope of everyday parents. We look forward to costs coming down.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I noticed during the Assistant Minister for Education's answer that there was a cacophony of shouting—quite intimidating—trying to intimidate the Assistant Minister for Education, particularly from the member for Isaacs.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
Mr Pyne: It was an excellent answer and I actually could not hear some of it because of the extraordinary level of noise coming from some of these people like the member for Adelaide, who is doing it now in fact.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the House, but I did observe that though there was an attempt at cacophony to intimidate the minister, it failed. She was not intimidated and was quite able to continue to answer her question.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:21): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. In light of the minister's previous answer—and, indeed, his answers over the last week—why does the minister even bother turning up to question time?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: there is some latitude given to opposition questioning, particularly new oppositions who are getting used to it, but that is not a question to the minister—it is not about responsibilities. It is simply a smear and it should be ruled out of order.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on the point of order: it is completely in order. It is telling that the Leader of the House could not refer to Practice or refer to a standing order. This goes to the very basis of whether or not a minister has arrived here to answer questions, and the opposition has every right to question why on earth he is here.
The SPEAKER: I intend to deal with the issue. Under standing order 100(d), questions must not contain arguments, inferences, imputation, insults, irony or hypothetical matter. I think the question fails on at least four issues. If the minister has a question and would like to rephrase it so it has some substance and is within the standing orders I would give him that opportunity.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker?
The SPEAKER: I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business, if he has something of substance to say.
Mr Burke: The concern from the opposition was the question. If that is your ruling, it will be no different to the other answers we did not get anyway.
The SPEAKER: I find that comment of the Manager of Opposition Business offensive and he will withdraw.
Mr Burke: I withdraw, but it was not directed to you at all—
The SPEAKER: Well, I took it that way.
Mr Burke: it was directed to the minister.
The SPEAKER: I took it that way.
Mr Burke: No, it was absolutely directed to the minister.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I offered the member for Corio the opportunity to rephrase his question, should he wish. If he does not wish, I call the member for Dawson.
Coal Industry
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (14:24): My question is to the Minister for Industry. I refer the minister to the comments of Michael Roche from the Queensland Resources Council at the Australian Steel Convention, where he said that 8,000 jobs have recently been lost in the Queensland coal sector. That has added to 37 jobs that it was announced yesterday had been lost because of the closure of the local Thiess office in Mackay. Minister, what impact will axing the carbon and mining taxes have on job opportunities in North Queensland?
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable the Minister for Industry.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Industry) (14:24): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The SPEAKER: I would remind that the Speaker is in the chair!
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: I thank the member for Dawson for his question.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: The member for Dawson, unlike the member for Isaacs, has a very good understanding of what the carbon tax and the mining tax are doing to the coal industry, not only in Queensland but across this nation. We have seen across the coal industry, as the member mentioned, some 8,000 jobs lost in Queensland in the last 18 months. I noticed the member for Isaacs was good enough to say, hopefully loud enough so it was heard, that the coal industry is going well. Can I assure you, Member for Isaacs, that it is doing nothing of the sort—and thank you for admitting that your carbon tax and your mining tax, which you were an integral part of introducing, are part of that problem. You said the coal industry was doing well, and it is not. The reasons for that are the carbon tax and the mining tax, amongst other issues.
If you want to restore confidence to an industry you do not tax it. If you want to restore confidence to an industry you get rid of the taxes. You get rid of the mining tax. You get rid of the carbon tax. You remove the cost impediments, but not only to the industry—because only the Labor Party could introduce a tax that actually costs money. They introduced a tax that locked in $16.7 billion worth of spending on a tax that raised a mere $400 million.
Mr Perrett: What have you said to Campbell about his royalties?
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: If the member for Moreton would listen he would learn something. It costs, on top of those losses, another $50 million to collect by the ATO. This is a disastrous tax. Then you combine it with the carbon tax, which is a $9 billion hit on industry and resources in Australia and you wonder why the coal industry is doing so badly at the moment.
The coalition is intent not only on removing these taxes but restoring confidence to industry and resources. The member for Dawson has shown over the last three years as the member for that seat that when you support an industry, when you protect and work with an industry, the community actually understands you are trying to save the industry. So despite the downturn in his electorate, despite the fact that things are getting tough in Mackay, despite the fact that the Labor Party went to war on the resources sector, I have to report that the member for Dawson was returned with an increased majority. That is not just because of that; it is also because he works so hard across the many other issues in his electorate. Madam Speaker, if those on the other side want to end the vandalism of the resources sector that they introduced then I suggest they get out of the way and let us repeal the carbon tax and the mining tax.
Taxation
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. I refer the minister to the bills to be voted on later today which abolish the instant asset write-off, the tax loss carryback and the special depreciation rules for motor vehicles. Can the minister explain why it is his government's priority to cut $4.2 billion in direct assistance to small business while giving further tax breaks to some of the largest corporations in the world?
Mr Hockey: There's no money!
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (14:28): I welcome the member for Oxley's inaugural question. There is a simple theory that I think those opposite need to come to terms with, and that is: benefits that you offer need to be paid for. We are just having this discussion and if I could characterise it in the same way the Treasurer did, a tax that raises that much, but spends that much, leaves this much in between that is not funded. I would suspect, like many in the small business community, that not only did the coalition recognise that Labor had made promises it could not cash, but Labor would have revisited these measures themselves. Labor went around the country being completely overstated in the way in which they characterised these benefits. This was never a tax cut. This was rephasing of depreciation allowances that we are keeping but recognising: if you front-end load those depreciation allowances, and argue that they help cash-strapped small businesses, that small businesses actually need to have the ready cash available—so cash-strapped are they—to claim these benefits some months down the track.
In addition, this was also the measure that saw the abolition of the entrepreneurs tax offset. From the cacophony that is coming from the opposite side, I wonder whether they realise that they were party to the abolition of the entrepreneurs tax offset. That was a discount available to Australia's 400,000 smallest businesses earning modest income, that got a slight incentive, introduced by the Howard government, to recognise their effort and their enterprise. This mining tax that you talk about has not raised anywhere near the amount you talked about and cannot fund any of the promises that you said it would, and it has imposed compliance burdens that burden everybody, even if they are not paying it, and has even included the abolition of a modest tax incentive for those courageous small businesses, 400,000 of them. And it was not just companies but independent contractors, partnerships and self-employed people who were all forced to pay higher taxes on their modest incomes as a result of your changes.
I think that the best thing Labor could do is be honest with the small business community. They overcooked it when they were in government. They talked about delivering benefits that never arose. They put out newsletters saying that they had delivered a reduction in company tax—that never arose either.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Isaacs!
Mr BILLSON: One thing that the small business community has learned from Labor is that you cannot trust what they say. They are always overcooking it. It is always about political spin. You have not heard the small business community at the election and you have not respected the election result. If you had you would hear the small business community as a single chorus saying: 'You want to help us? Axe the carbon tax.'
Cost of Living
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. I remind the minister that pensioners, including those in aged-care facilities like Strathdon Community Centre in Forest Hill and Heritage Gardens in Bayswater North, are telling me what a struggle it has been to pay their bills and keep up with the rising cost of living. Will the minister outline how the government plans to reduce the cost-of-living burden on pensioners and other people on low incomes?
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Social Services) (14:31): Madam Speaker, may I congratulate you on your elevation to the high office which you occupy. I thank the member for Deakin for his question and, in doing so, can I acknowledge the impressive maiden speech that he made in this place this week and his obvious concern for the constituents of Deakin, including the residents of the aged-care homes at Strathdon and Heritage Gardens in his electorate.
The member for Deakin asked me about the cost of living. We know that one of the major contributors, one of the major factors, in rising cost-of-living pressures for Australians both young and old is the carbon tax. Whilst the carbon tax remains in place there will be higher costs for ordinary Australians—higher energy costs and higher electricity costs—and that is the reason the government wants to repeal the carbon tax. A repeal of the carbon tax would benefit Australian households by $550 per year. So that is a win for Australians.
But that is not all. This government also proposes to maintain the Household Assistance Package. That means more assistance for 3.2 million pensioners in Australia—280,000 holders of the Commonwealth seniors health card, 1.6 million Australian families, one million recipients of allowances from government and, from the first of next year, 300,000 young people. That is not only a win in repealing the carbon tax but a win in terms of the retention of the Household Assistance Package. In addition to that, the government's recent decision to reduce the deeming rates benefits some 740,000 pensioners in Australia. So this parliament can do something about the cost-of-living pressures on ordinary Australians including the residents of the aged-care homes in the honourable member for Deakin's electorate. It can do something by respecting the will of the Australian people and abolishing the carbon tax.
In the last parliament the member for Deakin was a member of the Labor Party. In this parliament the member for Deakin sits on the government benches. That is another clear example of the will of the Australian people repeated right across this country on the question of abolishing the carbon tax. Get out of the way of the will of the Australian people. Axe the tax and do something to ease the cost of living for Australians.
Fiscal Policy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to government plans to cut much-needed support for Australian families—to abolish the schoolkids bonus, the income support bonus and the low-income super contribution. Can the Prime Minister explain why on one hand it is the government's priority to cut the benefits to families, to low-income retirees and Newstart recipients, but on the other hand it is their priority to give further tax breaks to some of the richest corporations in the world?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:35): The best thing that we can do for the families of Australia is to precisely honour the commitments that we made to them at the election. They know our country is in a mess. They know that Labor has created a mess. That is why they changed the government and now, having got our country into a mess, members opposite are obstructing the clean-up. Shame on them, Madam Speaker. The best thing we can do for the people of Australia is get rid of the carbon tax, and members opposite should not be standing in the way of that.
Education
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Education. Can the minister confirm that the academic results for Australian school students have gone backwards in real and relative terms when compared with the rest of the world in recent years? Minister, what plans does the government have to improve the academic outcomes for Australian school students?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Minister for Education and Leader of the House) (14:36): I thank the member for Ryan for her question. Unfortunately, I can confirm to her that literacy and numeracy results have gone backwards in recent years both relatively and, most shockingly of all, in real terms in comparison to our competitor nations around the world. Whether it is the program for international student assessment, trends in international maths and science study, progress in international reading literacy or, of course, the Labor Party's favourite report, the Gonski report, all of these studies show that our literacy and numeracy outcomes for students have declined in recent years. It is a very serious problem for the economy, for productivity, but more importantly it is a personal tragedy for those students, those children, emerging from schools who do not have literacy and numeracy skills as a result of our education system. We are letting them down.
Many in the Labor Party refuse to remove the log in their own eye with respect to this matter. Instead, they lecture parents that the current methods of teaching are efficacious and do not need to be changed. They are of course in fear of the Teachers Federation, which wants to continue to pretend that the outcomes are good in Australia and that nothing needs to change. Successive Labor ministers for education, including the Leader of the Opposition, who was a Minister for Education, sat on their hands for fear of taking on the Teachers Federation.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will desist!
Mr PYNE: But there is one brave soul in the Labor Party, the new member for Perth, who is not afraid to split with her Labor colleagues on this issue and is prepared to call a spade a spade. She did so in very strong terms. She said—and I quote her column in The Australian on Thursday, 24 October:
To me, it is immoral to allow so many Australian children to be victims of a failed educational fad. We are not just failing to teach these kids to read—we are destroying their confidence as learners. We teach them to hate school.
It was a very strong quote, and unfortunately I agree with it, because education should not be in that terrible state after years of successive Labor governments.
But we are fixing Labor's mess. We will fix Labor's mess. We have a $22 million fund that we will soon announce the details of to establish orthodox teaching methods in remote schools around Australia—things like direct instruction, explicit instruction, Jolly Phonics and MultiLit. We want our children to be able to read. We are not going to be hidebound by the ideological fights of the last two decades in education. We want to put students first.
Fiscal Policy
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. I refer the minister to correspondence received today from Grandparents Australia, which describes his government's plan to cut the schoolkids bonus as 'unusually cruel'. Can the minister explain why his government is prioritising cuts for hardworking Australian families while giving tax breaks to some of the largest corporations in the world?
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Social Services) (14:40): What I can tell the honourable member opposite is that, unlike the previous government, this government will honour the commitments it took to the election. This government will honour the commitments it took to the election.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members for Gorton and Grayndler will desist.
Mr ANDREWS: I know that is an alien concept for the Labor Party. I know that is an alien concept to a party whose previous government was built upon a lie to the Australian people. We will honour our commitments, unlike you.
Broadband
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Communications. I refer to a claim by Senator Don Farrell in April this year that construction had commenced to bring the NBN to more than 8,300 households in my electorate of Boothby. How many households in established areas have been passed by the NBN in Boothby, and how many have actually paid for a connection? Were Senator Farrell's remarks consistent with the approach of the previous government?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (14:41): I thank the honourable member for his question about his electorate of Boothby. I regret to say that there are none—zero—brownfield premises passed in his electorate with the NBN fibre, and consequently it will surprise him that there are no connections. No-one is paying for a service.
This is not surprising. In South Australia, since the initial connection in 2011 of 700 premises in Willunga in a trial, there has been virtually no progress at all. At the time of the election, only an additional 69 brownfield premises had been connected—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston will desist.
Mr TURNBULL: in the whole state—only an additional 69. We recall the Labor Party talking about the project being about to ramp up. Well, there was a ramp, but it was all down.
Of course, this abject failure to deliver could not dampen the enthusiasm of the honourable members opposite. On 28 August, the Hungarian Club in Norwood, in Adelaide, was witness to an NBN forum. The member for Chifley was there. The member for Adelaide was there. It was to update constituents on the progress of the NBN. I have the invitation here. But there seems to have been a typo, because the meeting was scheduled for an hour, which seems a very long time to discuss the fact that in Adelaide there were no premises passed and none connected. Of course, the member for Adelaide may have allocated the time to explain how this zero result could be reconciled with her announcement in July 2010 that Prospect was next in line for the NBN, or indeed that construction had commenced in November 2011.
But these, while consistent with Senator Farrell's spin, are small beer compared to Prime Minister Gillard telling Australians on 20 December 2010:
… the NBN can be delivered with a rate of return, which means taxpayers will be repaid their investment in the NBN with interest …
That was echoed by her colleague Senator Conroy at the same press conference, who said: 'NBN Co.'s expected rate of return is seven per cent, which compares favourably with the average 10-year bond rate to September 2010 of 5.4 per cent. That means the government can expect to recover all of its NBN Co. funding costs with interest.' The only problem was that this was one month—only one month—after the government received advice from Lazard, the investment bank, that the NBN project had a negative value of $31 billion. No wonder Australians lost faith in Labor. No wonder they are sick of their spin.
Fiscal Policy
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Is the minister aware that in my electorate of Charlton there are 8,132 families and 14,120 children receiving the schoolkids bonus? Can the minister explain to all these families why it is his government's priority to cut $1,200 a year in support for average hardworking Australian families while giving further tax breaks to some of the largest corporations in the world?
The SPEAKER: Would the honourable member for Charlton—and I apologise for not having had his correct title at hand—say to whom he is asking that question?
Mr CONROY: I said at the start, Madam Speaker—and I will repeat—that my question was to the Minister for Social Services.
The SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies—Minister for Social Services) (14:45): I thank the member for Charlton for his question. There is a reality that does not seem to have dawned upon the members of the Australian Labor Party. That reality is that their party when in government ran budget deficit after budget deficit after budget deficit. We have now inherited the Bowen black hole. We have a huge debt, which has been expanding every year since—
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I call on the minister to withdraw the phrase he has just used. It is clearly disorderly. It is clearly offensive and should form no part of the deliberations of this parliament, let alone an answer in question time from a minister.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: We will have silence. If the reference was to the term 'Bowen black hole', it is not unparliamentary. Indeed, there has been a long history in this place—prior to your entering it—of members who have been treasurers utilising that term.
Mr Dreyfus: Madam Speaker, if I could be further heard on this point: I again suggest that this is offensive and offends in particular against the principle that members should be referred to by their electorates or their titles.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr ANDREWS: I will tell you who this is offensive to: it is offensive to the Australian people, who are now struggling with the debt that you left them. That is the reality.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There is too much noise on my left!
Mr ANDREWS: Oh, my, how sensitive they are when we talk about the deficits and the debt mountain they have left the Australian people. Do not come in here and ask stupid questions.
The SPEAKER: I ask that there be less cacophony, if we like the term, in the chamber so that the questions and the answers can be heard.
Asylum Seekers
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Can the minister explain the impacts on communities like mine in Western Sydney of the previous government's decision to abolish offshore processing for people who arrived illegally by boat in 2008? How has the government acted to restore the effectiveness of offshore processing?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I asked for silence. Those on my left, we would like to hear the answer.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:48): I commend the member for her question.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Then be quiet!
Mr MORRISON: I know that the previous member for Lindsay had a very keen interest in the issue of border protection. Those who were here at the time remember good old 'Commander' Bradbury, who accompanied the then Prime Minister all the way to Darwin. That is a long way from Penrith. He was not looking for the Nepean Belle, I am sure.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will desist!
Mr MORRISON: I remember that the previous member for Lindsay had to endure, day after day, week after week and year after year, questions and other things being raised with him by his own constituents because of the failures of the previous government.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta will desist!
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: So will the member for Grayndler!
Mr MORRISON: At the heart of the previous government's failures was their decision, as the member for Lindsay has reminded the House, to abolish offshore processing. They also abolished temporary protection visas. Even to this day those on that side of the House remain divided about temporary protection visas being restored. It is no surprise that we have had to restore offshore processing in the way it was designed, because those opposite never, ever believed in it. The Leader of the Opposition in particular I note described offshore processing in these terms:
Howard's Pacific Solution is taking Australia down a sterile, dirty and nasty path.
That is what the Leader of the Opposition actually thinks about offshore processing. He said on another occasion:
Howard's—
not Mr Howard's—
actions undermine humanitarian values, and stir division within the Australian community.
What I notice is that the only division that is stirred on the issue of offshore processing and temporary protection visas is on that side of the House, because they have always been divided on the issue of offshore processing—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will be quiet!
Mr MORRISON: and that is why they could never implement it properly. They could never implement it properly, because they did not believe in it. So since the government were elected we have had to go about the process of putting it back in place in the way it was designed.
Under the previous government, when they were dragged kicking and screaming to reintroduce offshore processing, one in 20 people who arrived illegally by boat was sent to Nauru and Manus Island. At the eleventh hour, when they confected a press conference—it was not implementation of a policy; it was just a press conference—we inherited a policy that was unfunded, was under capacity and had been constantly undermined by the previous government in its implementation. That is why the Australian people threw them out—because they did not trust them to run offshore processing.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will desist!
Mr MORRISON: They know that those on this side of the House believe in offshore processing, and under the new government I am pleased to say that it is back in business the way it was designed.
Superannuation
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (14:51): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the 23,000 constituents in my electorate of Bendigo who are currently eligible for the low-income super contribution of up to $500. Can the Prime Minister explain why it is his government's priority to increase the tax on these Bendigo locals, real locals, who most need the support in their retirement whilst giving tax breaks to some of the largest corporations in the world?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:52): We went to the election being absolutely honest and up-front with the people of Australia. We were absolutely honest and up-front with the people of Australia that we could not continue unfunded benefits. We could not continue with benefits which were simply a cash splash with borrowed money. We were totally honest with the people before the election. The people elected us and we will faithfully discharge our obligations to them; we will faithfully honour the commitments that we made to them. And the best thing members opposite could do for the families of Australia, if they are as concerned as they say they are, is abolish the carbon tax. If they abolish the carbon tax, that will save the average Australian household $550 a year. Do not sneer at a saving of $550 a year. It is a very considerable saving, and it is entirely in accordance with the commitments that this government made and that this government intends to honour.
Superclinics
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (14:53): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Health. A constituent in my electorate, Ms Whitehouse, has complained to me that the Wanneroo GP Super Clinic is still not open and is yet to see a single patient after being promised by Labor in September 2007. Can the minister update the House on how delays to the Wanneroo GP Super Clinic have affected the provision of health in my electorate?
Mr Fitzgibbon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 100 and I refer you to Practice on page 560. I have noticed the government have been using a style which allows their backbenchers to name constituents—no doubt for political advantage in their electorates, and I can partly understand that—but it is clearly out of order under standing order 100 and page 560 of House of Representatives Practice.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, the standing orders say that the name of a person can be included in a question, especially if it authenticates the statement that is being made in the question. The member for Cowan was talking about a particular constituent. If we had not named the constituent, Mr Fitzgibbon would have taken the point of order that this might not actually be true. Naming the constituent adds lustre to the question because you can be certain that the claim has been authenticated.
The SPEAKER: I would just add—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will remove himself under 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: For the benefit of the House, I would also add the words of standing order 100, which are important in this question:
… and are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible.
I think it meets that description.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member will take his seat.
Mr Fitzgibbon: It is a new point of order, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: It had better be.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the House for his intervention, and indeed his assistance, because on page 560 of Practice it clearly says:
Questions must not contain names of persons unless they can be authenticated …
What the Leader of the House has pointed out is that they need to be authenticated. Indeed, the question did nothing to authenticate the quote used by the member asking the question.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:56): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. No amount of defence by the member will defend the record of the former minister for health. This is a shocking record.
I want to talk about the GP Super Clinics Program—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: And she's arcing up already!
Ms King: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 90. The minister has just impugned a member.
The SPEAKER: For the benefit of the House, the minister may just withdraw.
Mr DUTTON: I withdraw. My intention here is to provide a factual recount of the failings of the former minister. Let me start with the GP superclinic program. We heard the other day about the government's failure to provide one dollar of additional funding for chemotherapy patients beyond 31 December this year. They were saying to patients who needed chemotherapy services in this country that they would not get the extra service they needed beyond 31 December, but it does not stop there. Their problem is—
Ms King: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The minister needs to be directly relevant to the question.
The SPEAKER: On the point of order, I would have thought that it would need a little more elucidation than she gave it, but I would ask the minister to be directly relevant to the question.
Mr DUTTON: This goes to the competence of the former government. It does not just apply to the NBN or pink batts or the running up of $373 billion of debt; this government presided over a $650 million superclinic program that was a complete and utter failure.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: in 'Questions' at page 555 of Practice it says:
… it is not in order for Ministers to be questioned on opposition policies, for which they are not responsible.
It was a page of Practice oft quoted in the previous parliament, as you would remember, Madam Speaker. And, given that it was not within the question, it cannot be relevant and neither was it within his responsibilities.
The SPEAKER: I would ask the minister to be relevant to the question.
Mr DUTTON: So the superclinic the honourable member inquired about was announced, believe it or not, on 6 November 2007. You would have thought that for $5 million you would have got something by 2012 or 2013. But it is still not open. It is still not open for $5 million.
During that time we have had two Labor Prime Ministers, three federal elections and two Labor health ministers, but not one patient has been seen by this clinic. I say to the Australian public: if you wonder why waiting lists have blown out, if you wonder why money has been wasted in health, it is because the Labor way was not to spend money on patients; it was to spend it on Labor bureaucracies. The problem was that Labor built up bureaucracies, taking money away from patients and not spending it on these clinics. We know that, out of the clinics promised as far back as 2007, 10 have not even yet been started.
The incompetence of the Labor government knew no bounds. It did not just apply to their incompetence in child care or in broadband or in relation to the economy; the Labor Party were completely and utterly hopeless when it came to the Health portfolio. And there is a lot more yet to be detailed in relation to the former minister's failings.
Fiscal Policy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's comments earlier this year—golden words, really! He says:
What we have to do is spend less on lower priorities so we can spend more on high priorities …
Prime Minister, why are families, low-income earners and small businesses a lower priority for this government than tax breaks for some of the largest corporations in the world?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:01): Let me say it again for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite and people right around the country: we are going to implement the commitments that we made to the Australian people. Unlike members opposite, we were absolutely up-front with them before the election. We were absolutely honest and up-front about the various programs that we were going to axe and about the various programs that we were going to continue. We were absolutely honest and up-front with the Australian people before the election.
They voted for us knowing that it wasn't all going to be beer and skittles. It wasn't all going to be handouts. It certainly wasn't going to be all debt and deficit, which is what they had come to expect from members opposite. What we are not going to do is continue cash splashes with borrowed money. That is the Labor way; it is not the coalition's way and, frankly, it is not what the Australian people deserve. We will honour our commitments. If members opposite were fair dinkum about doing the right thing by the families of Australia, they would allow us to get on with repealing the carbon tax and giving the households of Australia $550 a year extra.
Defence
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:03): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Defence. I remind the minister that there are over 3,200 Defence personnel who work in my electorate of Hughes, including the Liverpool Military Area and Holsworthy Barracks. What plans does the government have to address the previous government's Defence cuts?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Minister for Defence) (15:03): I thank the member for Hughes for his question. He is a member who has argued strongly for the service men and women in his electorate. Let me thank you for standing side by side with some of your units during some very difficult times during the year.
It is right, Member for Hughes, that you should ask about future plans to address the mess that Labor has left within the Defence budget. Be under no doubt that this is an unmitigated mess that we have inherited.
Last week we had the somewhat unedifying spectacle of the departmental secretary coming out to confirm what we have known for five years and what Labor have been in denial about—that they have taken a hatchet to the Defence budget over the last half decade. But, not to be outdone, this week alone that great fiscal luminary the former Labor defence minister Stephen Smith is reported as saying that Defence reforms could not be fulfilled because of the over $21 billion that the former Labor government ripped out of the Defence budget. 'Labor lag shoots defence in the foot' is a piece in The Australian that I table. That is an absolute admission of the failures and the mess that that former Labor government left behind.
When you have senior Defence personnel joking that Labor 'simply used the Defence budget as an ATM'—bill after bill after bill pulled out of the ATM—you realise that that is Labor's way. It was always about Bill, wasn't it? The lowest level of Defence expenditure since 1938 as a proportion of GDP—that is your bill legacy; or is it simply the legacy of Bill? I am not really sure. But when you pull means of exchange—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: members need to be referred to by their title.
The SPEAKER: I would remind the minister to do that.
Mr ROBERT: I was simply referring to the means of exchange which are sometimes grubby, faceless and dirty. But, then again, I apologise. I withdraw, Leader of the Opposition.
Can I say to the member for Hughes that there is a better way. We as a government actually know where the deposit button is on the ATM. All that former government knew was where the withdrawal button was. So what we are going to say, Member for Hughes, and what you can take back to your electorate, is that under this government there will be no cuts to the defence budget. Under this government we will increase defence as a proportion of GDP to two per cent by 2022, and we will put back the money that that former Labor government recklessly pulled out. Under this government we will actually reinvest any money that is saved from the defence budget, as opposed to the last government, which pulled money out under the Strategic Reform Program and put nothing in. We will take a measured, purposeful and deliberate approach to restoring the finances.
Small Business
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (15:06): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, in February the Prime Minister announced plans for emergency assistance concessional loans of up to $100,000 to small businesses following a natural disaster. Can the minister explain to the House why bushfire-affected small businesses in New South Wales are not receiving the assistance the Prime Minister promised to provide?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (15:07): I thank the member for her question, and I echo the thoughts that we all have for those who have suffered from the bushfires. Our thoughts are with them at a difficult time of recovery, and we are very fortunate that the firefighters have made such a wonderful contribution to their communities. In addition to that effort, there is also a concerted and coordinated effort to help those communities recover. I acknowledge my friend and colleague Mrs Markus, who has done an outstanding job supporting her community. We have already seen the activation of the immediate defence response arrangements, and some of that includes assistance for small business. Unless you missed it, you would have seen that those small businesses directly affected by the natural disaster also have access to assistance. What is different and what we are implementing is our election commitment to provide concessional loans to small businesses that have been indirectly affected.
I am sure the member would realise that if your entire business interests are affected by a natural disaster, even though your business might not be in the area that is affected, it can have enormous implications for your business. I am proud to have supported and to have worked alongside our Prime Minister on this, after six years when Labor did not have the wit, could not see those connections, failed to act and was completely incapable of recognising those indirect effects. What you have seen is our government implementing those commitments. I acknowledge the Minister for Justice for his contribution to that work. I acknowledge the Minister for Human Services. I thank the Prime Minister for embracing this policy initiative. We continue to roll out our response in partnership with the New South Wales government to support those affected communities. And guess what? It includes the indirect impacts on small businesses, an insightful measure advocated by the coalition that your crowd did not have the wit to get onto in six years. We are getting on with implementing our commitments.
While I am on that topic: why don't you let us get on with all of our commitments in the small business portfolio—like the abolition of the carbon tax, like implementing our commitment to improve the mining tax, like getting red tape and compliance burdens down, like doing all those things to put the business back into small business? Not only are we doing this for those communities not affected by natural disasters; we are doing it for those communities who are directly affected by natural disasters, and we are implementing our policy commitment to support those businesses indirectly affected by natural disasters. Why don't you just support that effort and recognise that it is a measure you guys did not have the wit to implement in six years?
Carbon Pricing
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (15:09): My question is also to the Minister for Small Business—prompted by that comprehensive and insightful answer. Is the minister aware that the latest New South Wales IPART review indicates that electricity prices for small businesses in New South Wales have increased by an average of 47 per cent since 2010? Can the minister outline how the government repealing the carbon tax will help more than 6,000 small businesses in my electorate, and businesses across New South Wales, reduce their electricity bills?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (15:10): I thank the member for Mitchell. I acknowledge his ongoing and tireless support for the small businesses and family enterprises in his community. He, like all of us on this side of the House, recognises that small businesses and family enterprises are the lifeblood of so many communities right across our continent. We on this side of the House also recognise—yet to be appreciated by Labor—that the carbon tax was a very cruel measure inflicted on small businesses and family enterprises. When the former Prime Minister stared down the barrel of the television camera and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' the vast majority of small businesses, perhaps unwisely, actually believed her. They had not made preparations for a carbon tax, because they were promised they would not have one.
After that, the Greens-Labor alliance saw the introduction of a carbon tax, and alongside it there were all sorts of carve-outs, compensation and claims that it was going to be such an enormous financial trigger that it would change behaviour—but, just in case it harmed somebody, here is some compensation. Do you know who was left out of that entire equation? Do you know who received no direct compensation and none of the carve-outs? The small business community. They were told by Labor to either suck up the additional cost and have a further impact on the viability of their businesses or pass it on to consumers. In electorates like Mitchell, where there are a lot of small businesses already facing the stiff headwinds introduced by Labor into their economies, struggling to keep their heads above water, here was yet another cost, another imposition. They saw that cost come through in their direct energy costs. So, if you owned a cafe and used electricity to do your skinny lattes or to heat up your toasted sandwiches, if you owned an ice-cream shop where you had to keep your stock cool, if you owned a corner store where you just wanted to have the drinks cold or, heaven forbid, if you owned a milk bar where you wanted to keep your pies in the fridge until they were needed, all of those costs were going up. And it was not only the direct costs but all the embedded costs, the costs that were in the supply chain—all building through to the small business. That meant that small business was put into a corner and, in addition to the insult of being told there would not be a carbon tax, there was then the economic injury of having one with no direct compensation to support that additional burden on their business. We are going to relieve that burden. It is our commitment to remove this carbon tax.
The small business community are a single chorus across our country saying, 'Get rid of the carbon tax.' The carbon tax impacts on employment, on business viability and on costs. It is a drain and a drag on the enterprise of courageous small business men and women. Let us listen to the small business community and axe that carbon tax.
Mr Abbott: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
House of Representatives Hansard
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (15:13): Madam Speaker, I have a question—or more of a request. I understand that we have been advised that Hansard is not going to be printed but is only going to be distributed by email. From time to time members of the House of Representatives on both sides of the chamber do refer to Hansard,and I would request that you consider printing just three or six copies that we could access during the course of question time, because quite clearly we cannot bring computers into the chamber during question time—or printers, by the way. Just a modest number of copies would be helpful in the chamber.
The SPEAKER (15:14): I will take the Treasurer's question into consideration and see if it is possible to do that. Like the Treasurer, we too are keen to cut costs.
House of Representatives Hansard
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:14): I have two questions to the Speaker. First of all—if I may join with the comments from the Treasurer—it used to be the case that the printed copies were the only copies that attracted privilege. I do not know whether that has been changed, but that has been referred to previously.
The SPEAKER (15:15): Electronic documents are also covered.
Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:15): The second question I want to ask is this. We have no precedent for the issue of simultaneous contradictory amendments, which may arise for the first time in the parliament at 5.30 this afternoon.
The SPEAKER (15:15): I will stop the honourable member there. Under standing orders, I will accept questions about the administration, for which I am responsible, but not for matters within the chamber. That is the position that former speakers have also taken.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:16): Can I seek your guidance as to when is the appropriate time to raise it, Madam Speaker?
The SPEAKER (15:16): It is not an appropriate question for you to ask of me in the chamber. As I said, under the standing orders, I will accept questions on administration. The question I accepted from the Treasurer was one. I call the Leader of the House—who is going to offer assistance, I believe.
Mr Pyne: I am going to offer assistance, Madam Speaker. The assistance is that that is a matter within the House's authority to determine, and the House has determined its decision by passing the debate management motions by a majority of votes.
The SPEAKER: I accept the comments that people have made, and when we come to those issues we will deal with them.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (15:16): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr KATTER: Yes.
The SPEAKER: The member can explain where he has been misrepresented.
Mr KATTER: The Minister for Agriculture said I was not here when he answered a question the other day about the cattle industry. I was not in this place, listening to him pass gratuitous insults to me; I was out with Chinese representatives building a beef highway into China, which we have successfully built into Indonesia.
The SPEAKER: The honourable member will resume his seat. I think he is not giving a personal explanation as to where he has been misrepresented; he is trying to enter into debate—indeed, it is a bit worse because he is trying to tell us why he was better engaged outside this place, when it is his duty to attend here and represent his constituents. So I do not think he should go any further or he might get into more serious trouble.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
House of Representatives Hansard
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (15:17): I have a question—
The SPEAKER: About administration?
Mr FITZGIBBON: Indeed.
The SPEAKER: Good. Then I recognise the member—for that purpose only.
Mr FITZGIBBON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It follows the very important matter raised by the Treasurer with respect to parliamentary Hansard. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, whether you might consider writing to the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration asking it to seek from the Treasurer a new policy proposal to fund the provision of Hansard in this place.
The SPEAKER (15:18): I think that sounds a bit spurious.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:18): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms PLIBERSEK: I do claim to have been misrepresented.
The SPEAKER: Then I ask her to explain where she has been misrepresented.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister for Health referred to the Wanneroo GP Superclinic and implied that its progress was slow. I inform the Minister for Health—he could have checked this himself with the department—that construction has been underway since February this year. This is a project with Edith Cowan University that is being done with the Western Australian government, who have also contributed $5 million to the project—
The SPEAKER: We are now going into debate.
Ms PLIBERSEK: He also commented on the program more generally.
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members might wish to ask the former Leader of the House how to make a personal explanation. A debate can be held on the adjournment or 90-second statements or legislation, but the member has not indicated that she has been misrepresented at all. She is simply arguing the point, and there are forms of the House in which she can do that. This is not the right method to use.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the House, and he is quite right. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said she has shown that the work began this year. I understand that that was work that was supposed to begin or was flagged to begin in 2007. She said it has now started—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Well, in that case, perhaps you could say how your position was misrepresented.
Ms PLIBERSEK: The minister was implying that—
The SPEAKER: No, not implying; that is debate.
Ms PLIBERSEK: this program was slow or behind time, and—
The SPEAKER: I am sorry; that is debate. Members will resume their seats. It is not a question of implying. It is a question of something that was said that is supposedly a fact where you have a statement that refutes that position. If you can make that statement very concisely, then we will entertain it; otherwise, you can resume your seat.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Madam Speaker, he disparaged the program. Fifty out of 60 are operational—
The SPEAKER: Sorry, this is debate. No, this is not in order. The member will resume her seat and the Leader of the House will resume his seat. I am hesitant to echo the words of the Leader of the House, but the member for Hunter was good and the member for Grayndler was even better. The manner in which he went about correcting a misrepresentation was exemplary. Mr Albanese, perhaps you could hold a seminar. I think we will proceed with business.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
House of Representatives Hansard
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:21): I have a question. Can you provide Hansard to the House by the end of each question time so that I may quote the words exactly where the minister is misrepresenting me, if that is what you would like me to do?
The SPEAKER (15:21): I would say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that it is not my job to take notes on her behalf. If she cannot take her own notes, then she will have to find someone else who will take them for her.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Asylum Seekers
The SPEAKER (15:21): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Corio proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failures, made clear overnight, of the minister to be open with the Australian people about the progress of Australia's asylum seeker policy.
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 MARLES (Corio) (15:22): Let me start by making one clear point: there has been no reduction in the boat arrivals today compared to where they were at immediately prior to the federal election. In the two weeks prior to the federal election, four boats came to this country. As far as we know, in the last 14 days there have been at least five boats that have come to Australia—albeit we cannot be completely sure because we will not know exactly until Friday. Let us be clear: in the two weeks prior to the election, when Labor was still in power, there were four boats that had arrived. In the two weeks to today, that figure is now five.
The piece of policy which has changed the game when it comes to stopping the tide of boats from Indonesia is the PNG arrangement. There was almost a 90 per cent reduction in the numbers of people arriving at the time of the PNG arrangement before the election. Indeed, in some weeks, there was more than a 90 per cent reduction. This is an inconvenient truth for the now government, but it is the truth indeed.
We hear the government out there talking about 75 per cent reductions or saying that they are out there stopping the boats, but the simple fact of the matter is that, since prior to the election, compared to now, there has been no reduction in the flow of boats from Indonesia. The PNG arrangement, 19 July, and other important measures such as the refusal of automatic visas on arrival for Iranians entering Indonesia—a matter that was negotiated through cooperation by the then Rudd government in Indonesia—are the issues, the pieces of policy, which have changed the game.
This is an evolving area of policy. What we have on the government side are people who are inexperienced and who have found themselves in a time warp, believing that the policies that existed in 2001 such as TPVs, turning back the boats and the Pacific solution would represent a solution to this problem in 2013. The fact of the matter is: had all of those policies stayed in place after the Howard government, they would be dealing with the issue as this country faces it in 2013. The contemporary solution to the contemporary problem has been the PNG arrangement and other measures such as what was negotiated for Iranian arrivals in Indonesia. That was the game changer.
All we have seen from the government since the election are bells and whistles. We have seen a language edict issued requiring officials of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to now refer to asylum seekers as 'illegals'. We had that in October. We now have a grand Operation Sovereign Borders. We have seen the militarisation. We have seen weekly briefings, but there is nothing in all of this which amounts to a hill of beans of substance, nothing at all.
What we have seen is a culture of secrecy. What we have seen from this government—
Mr Morrison: Less boats.
Mr MARLES: no less boats—is an attempt to have the military answer its questions. What the minister has sought to do is set up a situation where it is a general who is arguing the government's policy against the opposition. Let us be clear: the information management strategy which the government is adopting now is a purely political decision.
We are not reflecting on the general, and that is precisely the point. The minister would love a situation where there is the opposition debating a general, but the fact of the matter is that the minister cannot run away from the fact that the way in which information is being managed is a political decision. The minister has come into this place during question time and on seven separate occasions, an eighth today, refused to answer questions on the basis of 'operational matters'. It says everything about the standing in which this government holds the parliament and the contempt of this government for the Australian people. All we have had is a refusal to answer questions here.
When there are briefings on those Fridays, limited information is given. By the way, we need to remember that there is a big difference between a press conference and the parliament. If the minister were to mislead a press conference, it would be a bad article. But if you mislead parliament then you lose your job. That is why it is so important that the parliament remains the pre-eminent place by which the government is held to account. That is why it is an appalling state of affairs that we have the minister coming into this place day after day and simply refusing to answer questions on the basis of things being operational matters. This reached farcical levels last night when Lieutenant General Campbell was in fact able to answer a precise question that the minister himself had been asked last week when the general confirmed that there had been no boats purchased from Indonesia, none. When asked that question in this place last week, the minister unequivocally said that was an operational matter that he could not answer, but the general could answer it last night.
What that says is this: Lieutenant General Angus Campbell has shot a bullet right through the concept of operational matters. It is completely dead as an idea, and it says everything about the fact that that was a political idea. It was never an idea which went to the question of whether or not there were indeed any operational reasons why this information could not be provided to the Australian people. The real reason why there is secrecy about the way in which this government is pursuing its asylum seeker policy is because of the ridiculous commitments that it made prior to the last election that it has not been able to fulfil. No boats have been turned around. Indeed on the first attempt, as far as we are aware, of trying to tow a boat, the boat broke up and it sank. That is how this government defines a matter as being safe to do so. No boats have been turned around. No boats, as far as we are aware, have been towed back.
We learnt last night that no boats have been bought from Indonesia—none; absolutely none. So that is why we have secrecy here: to hide the fact that the policies which this government took to the last election are not being fulfilled today. But, to top it all off, we have also seen that the relationship with Indonesia in relation to asylum seekers must be maintained on a cooperative basis. This is our neighbour. This is the country from which these boats are coming. It is plain common sense that we will not be able to make progress in relation to asylum seeker policy unless we have a positive, cooperative relationship with Indonesia. That relationship has been handled with total ineptness by this government in the context of asylum seekers.
We had the coalition before they even became the government announcing the turn-back-the-boats policy—or talking about it—and, in response, they elicited the very unusual circumstance of the Indonesian foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, saying:
… such a policy would constitute a unilateral type of measure that we do not support.
In relation to the boat buyback policy, again before the election, we had Mahfudz Siddiq of the parliamentary commission for foreign affairs in Indonesia saying:
This is really a crazy idea, unfriendly, derogatory and it shows lack of understanding in this matter.
That is what the Indonesian government was saying in relation to the coalition before the election about the policies that they have sought to but have not implemented since the election. They sought to dictate terms to Indonesia, and in the process egg has ended up on their face. Indeed when they had their stand-off with Indonesia between 8 and 9 September, within 24 hours they had backed down—no resolve at all on the part of this government.
You look at the Liberal Party policy. It says this:
An incoming coalition government will treat the border protection crisis as a national emergency and tackle it with the focus and energy that an emergency demands.
We have seen nothing other than a lack of resolve. We have seen nothing other than a lack of competence. They sought to differentiate on the issue of competence at the election, but there has been none of that here. All we have seen is inexperience mixed with arrogance. That is a dangerous cocktail, and it has left the policy in disarray.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:32): I welcome the opportunity to debate this topic today, because it gives me the chance to once again provide further updates on the progress that the government are making on the commitment we made to the Australian people, which was to do one thing—that is, to stop the boats. We gave that commitment. We set out the arrangements we would put in place to do that, and we are progressing with implementing our measures to stop the boats.
There is one thing that there is no secret about and it is this: in the first eight weeks of Operation Sovereign Borders, the number of people arriving illegally by boat compared to the eight weeks before the introduction of Operation Sovereign Borders has declined by 75 per cent. It is actually more than 75 per cent; it is almost 80 per cent.
I know that the shadow minister wants to claim two weeks out of more than 300 as evidence of the previous government's record. What the shadow minister needs to understand is that the previous government are responsible for their entire record in government. Their entire record of government is one on this issue of cost with a record budget blow-out of more than $11.5 billion. You want to talk about paying for boats: the Australian people were paying for the boats that came to Australia under the previous government with a blow-out of more than $11.5 billion.
We went from $85 million a year with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship—as it was then—prior to the previous government abolishing the measures that worked, and that went to an annual cost of more than $3 billion a year. That was the cost.
There is the chaos of more than 50,000 people that turned up on over 800 boats that illegally entered Australia—the chaos that we saw in our detention network: the riots, the fires, people standing on roofs, immigration officials being forced to stand up on boxes in the middle of roof cavities talking to rioting and protesting detainees, and ministers refusing to take them down. They were embarrassed into action when the New South Wales police just turned up one day when protesters went and stood on the then minister's roof and they were down within hours. The chaos that the Australian people had to endure under the previous government's failures was absolutely galling to them, and they tossed them out because of it.
There is the tragedy that occurred as a result of the previous government's failures. That tragedy existed in two specific areas—and I referred to one of them yesterday: the fact that under the previous government's policies, which thankfully are no longer policies, every single person who arrived illegally in Australia by boat and was given a visa by that government got a permanent visa. That is bad enough. That was the reward and the incentive that that government ran for their entire term.
Above that, every single visa—and there were more than 15,000 of them, by the way, which that they handed out; more than 15,000 invitations for others to follow—took the place of someone waiting in a camp or an even more desperate place somewhere else. More than 15,000. That has changed. But then there is the tragedy of the more than 1,100 people who are dead. I know that no-one in this House does not believe that that is a tragedy and no-one on this side of the House, whether they sit here now or when we sat on the other side, draws a direct line between those two events. But it did occur and that is why this government is getting on with the business of implementing the measures we know are necessary to do exactly what we promised—that is, to stop those boats coming.
I can report on progress. The joint agency task force brings together more than 15 different agencies to ensure a single-minded application of all the government's will, resources and programs to focus on the issue of putting an end to this madness that occurred under the previous government's administration. Those opposite like to mock Operation Sovereign Borders. That means they have failed to learn the lessons of their failures in government and they still just do not get it—that you need to apply the full will and resolve of a government to solve this problem.
There has been already been extensive ministerial-level engagement within the region to put in place a regional deterrence framework. This government understands that you do not make your own borders stronger by encouraging others into the region; you need to make the region's borders stronger. You do not run a regional cooperation approach that invites people into Indonesia that says: if you make a secondary move beyond your country of first asylum and if you get to Indonesia, we will create more places for you so more of you can come. I can assure you that the Indonesian government are not excited about the idea of being an asylum magnet courtesy of Australian policies. They already know too bitterly the experience of that because the previous government got rid of the policies that worked.
The communications messaging that goes up into source and transit countries has been increased, and we have given it the budget to do that. The maritime operations of this government are different to those under the previous government. Those members opposite and all members in this place, based on the statements of Lieutenant General Campbell, will know why I can go no further into that. We are doing things differently on water, and people who are trying to get to Australia know it.
The tempo of deterrence and disruption activities that are taking place throughout the region, not just in Indonesia—and we are incredibly grateful to the Indonesian government—has been increased. We are ensuring that those who are out there, particularly our Australian Federal Police, who are working cooperatively with governments throughout the region, no longer have to borrow from Peter to pay Paul to ensure they can do their job. The previous government drew down the resources available to those working offshore to disrupt and deter people smugglers where they are transiting. That has been changed. They are supported and they are getting the resources they need to do that job. That is why we are now stopping more than double the number of people getting here by boat. So our disruption and deterrence activities and the additional support that we have given are ensuring that every week more people are being stopped from coming here than those actually getting here.
The offshore-processing arrangements have been put in place to work, not to fail. The previous government were dragged kicking and screaming to offshore processing. They do not believe in it. They never did. That is okay. They do not think it is a policy. They never did. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming. They used to come into this place and stand at this dispatch box and say why Nauru would not work, why Manus Island would not work, why offshore processing was inhumane, and all of these things. They refused to do it and they abolished it. But they were dragged kicking and screaming to do it and, when they brought it in, they did it under protest. But they did not back it up. Fewer than one in 20 people in that first implementation of offshore processing actually went to offshore processing. That is not how it was designed to work. We have changed that. We have made sure there are no exemptions to offshore processing, absolutely none. That was not the case under the previous government. There is a 48-hour rapid transfer process so that people do not get to settle in here, as was occurring under the previous government. They go straight to offshore processing. That is how you run offshore processing.
The capacity of our offshore processing centres in the first 100 days will be double what we inherited from the previous government. That is what a government does when it believes in its bones about these policies. The border protection policies that are being implemented by this government are the ones we believe in. The Australian people sent the previous government a very important message about the policies they implemented—that is, the Australian people did not trust them in their hands.
The Australian people know that we believe in border protection. The Australian people know that, when it comes to border protection, those measures will always be more effective in the hands of a coalition government than they could ever be in the hands of the Labor Party and their good friends the Greens. They know the coalition stand for strong borders. They know that to have a strong and important immigration program the Australian people have to have confidence that our borders are secure. That is what we are introducing. That is what we are delivering. Arrivals illegally by boat are down more than 75 per cent, and that is the message that this opposition does not want to hear. (Time expired)
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (15:42): I am pleased to rise in support of this matter of public importance. I commend the shadow minister for bringing this to the attention of the House. As we on this side of the House know, the substance of this MPI is one that is not lost on our constituents. It is one that is being raised regularly—that this is not the government that they voted for. They did not expect and they do not deserve the level of secrecy that is going on here. It is certainly something that they did not anticipate, and that is coming through loud and clear. I know that my colleagues are getting exactly the same feedback from their local electorates.
It is very important, first, to look objectively at what has happened in this portfolio over the last couple of months. It is important to look at the facts. Look at the period from 19 July 2013—when the policy changed; the catalyst for this policy change and still the policy today—and the two weeks before the election: only four boats arrived as a result. Anyone who tries to claim credit for anything other than a successful policy in response to that policy change is totally wrong, and the facts demonstrate that. When we look at 19 July, when the former minister for immigration and the then Prime Minister reached an agreement, it was implemented immediately and had immediate results. In the month after that arrangement was put in place there was a 40 per cent reduction in boat arrivals.
Those opposite talked a big game. They talked a really big game when they were in opposition. They were pushing each other out of the way to stand in front of a billboard—all those billboards—telling how many boats had arrived. They said they were going to buy them. They were going to turn them back. Well, what happened? Now they are hiding them. The minister is not in the chamber, but it would not make any difference if he were because he does not answer questions anyway. It has gone from 'stop the boats' to 'hide the boats'. Quite seriously, this is the same side that claim credit for a policy—I remember very clearly, and I am sure the shadow minister would too—that they said would not work when it was announced last July. Now they are taking credit for it.
What happened? Today's minister and the then shadow minister, the member for Cook, panicked. You could see the panic when this policy was announced. He said, 'They've got an arrangement; it might work.' So what did he do? He thought of another three-word slogan: Operation Sovereign Borders. Three-word slogans might have cut it when you were talking the big game in opposition, but now the adults are in charge, and don't they act like adults! Operation Sovereign Borders took an extraordinary step of conflating two very separate issues that are quite clearly problematic today, as has been exposed in Senate estimates—conflating immigration and defence.
Let us be clear about this. The only thing Operation Sovereign Borders does is invoke these parameters of a military exercise quite clearly to censor information and mask all these failures of the coalition's policy. I refer—do not take it from me—to the Australian Defence Association, who warned of this occurring. They said:
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's plans to appoint a senior military commander to attack people smuggling and boat arrivals have been dismissed. It is not conducive to informed public debate to militarise discussions of what remains unequivocally a civil law enforcement issue.
It is no wonder we have Lieutenant General Campbell getting up in estimates and stressing that he does not want to be involved in the political process. He said, 'I am not involved in the political process.' I stress again: 'I am not involved in the political process.' Unfortunately for him, this is what he has been dragged into—nothing more than a change in media management. Boat buybacks: a failure. How many? Zero. Boats to be towed back: we know they have tried to tow back one and they destroyed it—real geniuses, this government. And the minister daily is failing to be up front with the Australian people. Well, the Australian people are onto it. (Time expired)
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (15:48): The hide of the opposition in moving this MPI! The hide of you! You oversaw one of the greatest public policy failures in the history of the Commonwealth, unravelling the successful Howard government initiatives to stop people-smuggling. Let us remember what happened during the time of the Howard government. When John Howard left office, do you know how many people were in detention who had come by unauthorised boats? Was it 10, was it 100, was it 500 or was it 1,000? It was four.
Government members: Four!
Mr FRYDENBERG: Four people had come in an unauthorised manner by boat and were in detention during the time of the Howard government. How many had come over the last five years of the Howard government? Was it 10,000? Was it 20,000? Was it 50,000? No. It was 300 people who had come illegally by boat in the last five years of the Howard government.
You oversaw one of the most graphic public policy failures in this country, spending more than $11½ billion, wasting the taxpayers' money; more than 800 boats; more than 50,000 unauthorised boat arrivals. You had the tragedy in our relationship with Indonesia over the Oceanic Viking. You had the so-called East Timor solution, where you did not consult the Prime Minister, Xanana Gusmao, and then the so-called Malaysia Solution, which was disallowed by the High Court.
In contrast, we had a successful policy. So what have we done since coming back to office? We have done a lot to stop the boats. We have already put in place Operation Sovereign Borders and, as we heard from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in just the first eight weeks of Operation Sovereign Borders the number of people coming in an unauthorised manner by boat compared to the last eight weeks of your government is down 75 per cent. We have temporary protection visas—TPVs—working back; we have much better cooperation in offshore processing; and we have re-established our humanitarian visa program to ensure that people who need those visas actually get them.
Then our Prime Minister made a successful visit to CHOGM, where he announced that we are going to give a couple of patrol boats to Sri Lanka. Who do you think came out in support of that? Was it the Leader of the Opposition? No. Was it the shadow minister for foreign affairs? No. It was Bob Carr. Bob Carr came out in support of the Prime Minister doing something to stop this illegal people-smuggling trade by giving a couple of patrol boats to Sri Lanka.
It has been said by those opposite that there is a lack of transparency. I can tell you now that in this weekly briefing we are providing information to the Australian people that is consistent with an effective policy to stop the boats. You do not want to provide the people-smugglers with information that can be used to ply their evil and destructive trade. Do not take my word for it. Listen to Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, who said about announcements in relation to providing information on the nationalities of those who are coming illegally by boat, or the locations of those boats: 'These announcements arm people smugglers with information to convince people to get on boats.' What about the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, who said last Friday:
… the military way of doing things is to operate with a higher degree of operational security to keep the people smugglers on the back foot, and I think that's really why there's a need for operational security, and that's why things are the way they are at the moment.
This is an uncomfortable debate because those opposite try to portray us as being cruel to people who are coming to this country in an unauthorised manner. But what we are doing is protecting Australia's sovereignty and ensuring that the people smugglers cannot ply their evil trade. You opposite were neglectful in government and now you are neglectful and failing your duty as the opposition. We have stopped the boats before; John Howard proved what an effective policy it was. We will stop the boats again. We will defend Australia's national sovereignty and defend Australia's national interest.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (15:53): I offer some simple statistics. In the two weeks prior to the federal election, 26 August to 7 September, the number of asylum seeker boats that arrived in Australia totalled four—four boats. Why is that? It is quite simply because Labor implemented a policy of a regional resettlement arrangement, a cooperative arrangement with an important partner in Papua New Guinea that sent a strong message to people smugglers and those seeking to come here by boat that if you come here by boat you will end up being processed in Papua New Guinea. It was a clear signal that the policy worked. Over the last two weeks, how many boats have come to Australia? There is a total of five that we know of that have been reported in the media. And how is cooperation with one of our nearest and dearest partners going on this important policy issue? It is going remarkably well!
This is an absurdity. This policy has become an absurdity. Here we have a minister of the Crown responsible for this particular area of policy refusing to answer questions regarding our nation's border security, regarding our nation's security policies, regarding our nation's immigration policy, regarding our nation's foreign affairs policy and regarding our nation's fiscal policy when it comes to relations with asylum seeker issues. This has affected the confidence of the Australian people in this parliament. It is an abysmal absurdity and a contempt for the procedures of this parliament, because under the Westminster tradition it is question time in which a minister is accountable to the Australian public, to the people, for the department and the policies that are administered by that particular minister. That is not occurring under this government, under this minister. We have seen that contempt continue over recent days with this minister refusing to comply with an order of the Senate to produce documents relating to on-water operations in his policy area and his department since the election, refusing to comply with an order of the parliament. The contempt continues.
Many Australians may not think that this is such an important thing, but it is in this respect. Public funds have been expended on this policy. Taxpayers' money has been expended on this policy, and those opposite are refusing to tell the Australian people how that money is being spent and indeed whether or not that money is being effectively spent and whether or not that policy is being effective. The period set aside for accountability in this parliament on questions of expenditure is being ignored by the minister and ignored with the implicit approval of the Prime Minister. He refuses to answer questions regarding the cost of this policy. He refuses to answer whether or not this policy is actually working.
It was reported by News Limited this week that a Customs boat had to rescue 40 asylum seekers after the Customs boat had attempted to turn that boat around and tow it back and it broke in half. This was ignoring the warnings of the previous government about the failings of this policy, ignoring the warnings of the Navy. What is reported is that that occurred—risking, I might add, the safety of our naval personnel. It is a very important issue for the Australian public. What was the response of the minister when he was asked by the shadow minister to confirm or deny that that event actually occurred, that Australian naval personnel were put in harm's way in implementing a policy of this government? His answer was that he refused to tell the Australian public—an insult to the parliament, an insult to the people of Australia.
What is the reason that the minister has given? He says that this is a military operation. He says that this will compromise the security of the operation. I draw to the attention of the parliament this fact: since 2001, dedicated Australian service personnel have been serving in Afghanistan, serving our nation, putting themselves in harm's way. After Labor came to government we instituted a policy of reporting to this parliament on an annual basis on the success of those operations, on the expenditure that was undertaken in that particular military operation. But this government is refusing to come into this parliament and report to the Australian people on the success or otherwise of another military operation. Shame on you for showing utter contempt for this parliament and disrespecting the Australian public.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:58): It is very interesting to follow the member for Kingsford Smith, who obviously remains in complete denial about the facts in relation to this matter. Our history records that Labor's policy of undoing the Howard government's policies on asylum seekers and border protection is the most monumental policy failure we have seen in our nation's history. But the real disaster, the real failure, was not so much on their tragically flawed original decision when they came to office in late 2007. The real disaster was the nondecisions of the Labor and Greens government when they continued on with those policies, failing to admit their mistakes when the disastrous consequences of those policies were obvious to every Australian. We know what they were: 800 boats, 50,000 arrivals, a budget blow-out of close to $12 billion. But most tragic of all was the deaths of 1,100 people that the policies of the people sitting on my right caused.
The previous Labor government turned the seas around Christmas Island into a graveyard, a graveyard of over 1,000 souls. This mob should hang their heads in shame. You should hang your heads in shame, you should be cringing with embarrassment and you should let us get on with cleaning up the mess that you created.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The member for Hughes will resume his seat. I was about to bring his attention to the use of the word 'you'—and it has been happening on both sides during this MPI. 'You' refers to the occupant of the chair. In this case, it is not me that you are referring to. So I once again remind the House that the use of the word 'you' is a reflection on the chair and is grossly disorderly.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. What the opposition fails to understand is that we are currently in a military operation to stop the boats and, most of all, to stop the deaths at sea. No government would give a running commentary on operational details of the fight against the Taliban. Likewise, we should not be giving operational details of our fight against the people smugglers. We have seen the Greens and Labor become the best friends of the people smuggler. But with the change of government we—
Mr Fitzgibbon: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find that extremely offensive, and I ask the member to withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hughes would assist the chamber if he would withdraw that reflection.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Mr Deputy Speaker, to assist the chamber I withdraw. We need look no further than the words of Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, a lieutenant general in our armed services. He has made very clear the importance of the way information is released on this matter. He has made it very clear as to why these protocols are in place. He has said it would give advantage to the people smugglers if we were to release this information; it will provide people smugglers with material that may be used to manipulate or confuse their customers; it would undermine our regional relationships necessary to deal with this problem; and, most of all, it would endanger our people.
That is why the government are taking the steps that we are taking. But, most of all, we need to remember, when it comes to secrecy, the policies of the previous Labor government. Remember that, when they were releasing people on bridging visas out into the suburbs of our cities, our state police commissioners specifically asked and wanted to know where those people were being released, and the previous Labor government refused to provide that information. They refused to provide information to our state police commissioners about where people were being released into our society, because they wanted to look after their safety.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:03): This is a matter of public importance at two levels. It is about an important matter of public policy, but it also goes to the very heart of our democracy. This is not the government the Australian people elected on 7 September; this is a government of secrecy. And it is that secrecy which goes to the heart of this debate, which I am very glad the shadow minister for immigration and border protection has brought on. We have heard a lot of rhetoric and a lot of abusive language but no facts. There are two issues at play. There are two questions we have to ask. Firstly, what do we know? One thing that we know is that the PNG resettlement program was working. That is an uncomfortable fact for those in the present government. It has been raised three times in this debate.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr GILES: And the fact that the member for Hughes or anyone else says it louder does not make it not true. The PNG resettlement solution was working. We know that. What is the other thing that we know? The present government and the present Minister for Immigration and Border Protection are not interested in telling us what they are doing. Why? There are some big fig leaves. He will give us 10 minutes of a history lesson. We have had a history lesson from other members opposite—plenty of history, plenty of discussion about the work of previous governments. But in here we hear nothing about the work of this government. We hear '75 per cent', we hear 'nearly 80 per cent', but in this chamber we hear no more.
Why, I ask members, could it be? What possible inference could we draw from the fact that we are hearing nothing about the tow-backs and the buybacks? What possible reason could the minister have for not having in his folder the answers which demonstrate the success of his policies? I think it is pretty clear there is only one inference that can be drawn.
I am a new member in this place and I may be very naive, but I have read House of Representatives Practice and I would refer members opposite to page 543, which states:
One of the more important functions of the House is its critical review function. This includes scrutiny of the Executive Government—
yes, scrutiny of the executive government, Minister—
bringing to light issues and perceived deficiencies or problems, ventilating grievances, exposing, and thereby preventing the Government from exercising, arbitrary power, and pressing the Government to take remedial or other action. Questions are a vital element in this function.
Members will be pleased to hear that. And further:
It is fundamental in the concept of responsible government that the Executive Government be accountable to the House. The capacity of the House of Representatives to call the Government to account depends, in large measure, on its knowledge and understanding of the Government's policies and activities. Questions without notice and on notice … play an important part in this quest for information.
I think this is a very important passage which goes to the heart of this debate. But it is very difficult for me, a naive new member, to reconcile this description of responsible government with the present government's performance. On eight occasions the minister has refused to answer direct questions. What is the fundamental point of having a minister who is not accountable and responsible to this parliament? What is the point of having a minister? It flies in the face of centuries of responsible government and makes it impossible for the people of Australia to determine the performance of the policies that he is so eager to claim credit for. With the repeated refusal to answer questions, the only inference anyone here can draw, the only inference the Australian people can draw, is that buybacks and tow-backs are not working and the policies of the previous government, including the PNG resettlement solution, are working.
There is something unsettling and even Orwellian about this government, going to the very title of Operation Sovereign Borders and the militarisation of civil policy, from debate management motions to operational matters to this failure to disclose anything in this debate on this matter of great public importance. This is treating parliament with contempt. This is treating the Australian people with contempt. It is surreal. May I suggest in future that the media strategy comes after the public policy, that the media strategy comes after the responsible minister treating this parliament and the Australian people with the respect they deserve.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (16:08): I say to the member for Scullin: welcome to this chamber. I am willing to take you up on your suggestion. Indeed, the media policy should follow the public policy. It is a very good suggestion. If you wanted an example of a government change denier, I think the member for Scullin just gave us a snapshot of the denial that is going on in the Labor Party today. Usually a government will get up and say something like, 'We had a great three years,' 'We had a great last term,' 'We had a great last six years,' or, 'Prime Minister Gillard and Prime Minister Rudd were great prime ministers; what great policies they had.' But, in summary, the argument of the member for Scullin, the member for Corio and the member for Greenway is: 'We had a great two weeks. In fact, in that final hour of our government we were nailing it. If you just gave us a few minutes more, we could have stopped every boat in human history—one more minute, 60 more seconds, 10 more seconds, and we might have got to it'! In this chamber we all know the reality is very different. Member for Scullin, you are a little naive, by your own admission. It was 300 weeks.
When we first came to government, we had to deal with the legacy that we inherited, just like every other government that comes to office, just like the Labor government when they came to office in 2007 had to deal with the legacy that they inherited: a working border protection system, four people in detention, no boat arrivals, a problem that had been solved, a problem that had been fixed. At that time we saw Prime Minister Rudd wanting to walk both sides of the compassion-and-toughness street. There are two approaches you can take to border protection: you can be tough and firm or you can be compassionate. The Greens embody compassion, and they have an integrity to their position. They say: 'Open the borders. Let them in.' The Liberal Party has always said: 'We want to be tough and firm on this, to be fair, because of the terrible tragedy in terms of lives that comes with this problem.' Prime Minister Rudd said: 'We're going to try and do both. We're going to tread both sides of the compassion-and-toughness street.' By trying to do that, he unravelled the tough policies that the Howard government had put in place, creating the problem.
The member for Corio spoke about a contemporary problem and a contemporary solution. I say to the member for Corio: the contemporary problem was the Labor government and the contemporary solution was the last election. Everyone has seen what has been going on here. We are happy to have this debate in the House every day, because things had to change. The last six years were an example of policy failure, the most graphic policy failure—amongst a series of policy failures—by any government in this country's history. It came at a great cost, because we had so many boats that were not turned back, with loss of life—1,100 deaths at sea, we think; budget blow-outs of $11 billion; 800 boats arriving; and people smugglers in business. This is sophisticated organised crime, and the last government failed to understand that. While Prime Minister Rudd used to get up and talk tough on people smugglers and say they are a great evil that have to be dealt with, his government's policies deliberately unwound a working system and enabled people smugglers to get back into business, causing the very problem that they sought to solve.
Now those opposite get up in this place and say we are doing something different and attack the fundamentals of what we are doing, which is different. Yes, it is different. It is the policies we took to the election. It is the policies we put in front of the Australian people. It is different. It is tough. It needs to be given time to work. It is already starting to work, but the opposition's only interest here is to undermine the newly working policies of a new government. They are government change deniers. They come into this chamber in denial that the government has changed, in denial that it was actually the Labor Party, the previous government, that was the problem. The Australian people have elected a group of people to provide the solutions, and we are providing those solutions. These MPIs and this line of questioning every day are designed to do nothing more than to undermine the approach of the government. Given the serious nature of this matter, that is a very unethical thing to do.
I say once more to the member for Corio: do not come in here anymore and tell us about the glorious last two weeks of the Rudd government. You might have got your glorious leader back into office in the final few weeks, but it was not that glorious. You had six years. You created the problem, and this government will create the solution.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:13): Much emotion comes into this debate in Australia, both inside and outside this chamber. I want to be clear about a couple of things. I shifted my views on this topic after taking part in the Christmas Island tragedy inquiry. That process, during which I watched the footage of young people drowning, really hardened my heart, I guess, in terms of understanding how tough this has to be when you are in government and dealing with those people that come across the sea. Obviously no-one would want to have statistics where you have one in 20 people drowning—no-one on either side of the chamber. I would never suggest that. I have seen people stand up in this chamber and cry when talking about this, because it is quite an emotional thing. I remember the member for North Sydney saying:
I will never ever support a people swap where you can send a 13-year-old child unaccompanied to a country without supervision—never. It will be over my dead body. How dare people?
I remember that particularly, and I quote that from the Hansard. It is an emotional topic.
Let us be realistic about this. We do not want one in 20 people drowning. Politically, it works for any party to make sure that the Australian people are not concerned about the number of those who are coming across the sea. They are not illegal. Let us get that straight. We signed a treaty, and while we are still a signatory to that treaty they are not illegal. I refute that suggestion every time I hear the Prime Minister say it. This is why I deliberately use the words from the second verse of the Australian national anthem, which refers to them as the people 'who've come across the seas'. Every time we sing that second verse we should remember that. Anyone who is a parent would know that we would do whatever we could to put our children in a safer place—whatever we could! In fact, there are seven million Australians who did that; they put their children in a better place.
While preparing for this debate, I thought it appropriate to go back to some of the recommendations of the expert panel on asylum seekers. I did hear Minister Morrison quoting some of the words of Angus Houston in the media lately. As people might recall, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Paris Aristotle and Professor Michael L'Estrange prepared this report for the government. I return to their recommendations. The first recommendation talks about broad characteristics which both sides of the chamber would agree on. I tick both sides for that. Recommendation 2 says 'increase Australia's humanitarian program', which we did, from 13,750 up to 20,000, with a commitment at the election to go to 26,000. We are now on this side of the chamber. Obviously, those opposite are committed to decreasing it to 13,750.
Let us look at some of the other recommendations. Recommendation 3 talks about regional cooperation. That is a big focus. I think you have to put a black mark in the copybook of those opposite for that one. Recommendation 4 talks about bilateral cooperation on asylum seeker issues with Indonesia. Today Indonesia just downgraded their relationship with Australia—so a big cross through that recommendation. Recommendation 5 says 'develop its vitally important cooperation with Malaysia on asylum seekers'. The quote I read out was about the debate on the Malaysian people swap. I have a vague recollection that those opposite actually voted with the Greens to knock it off—but maybe I am misremembering that.
Mr Conroy: You're not, mate.
Mr PERRETT: That is what happened. People who have made speeches today on this issue sat with the Greens to knock off that people swap because Malaysia was not a signatory to the UN convention on looking after asylum seekers. They sat with the Greens on that policy. Then it comes out today—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr PERRETT: Well, my understanding from the media is that we have had unaccompanied minors sent to Nauru, when the minister is actually the guardian of those minors. It is a difficult job, I would imagine, to be the minister making that decision. How can you look after the best interests of those children by sending them to Manus Island or to Nauru or, if it does come about, into an Indonesian program? That has been reported in the media. The reality is that we have had 225 years of people coming across the seas to this country, and there has been an irrational fear of other people coming from across the seas ever since that started. (Time expired)
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (16:18): The member for Corio has the audacity to bring on this MPI despite his role as a member of the former government that dismantled border protection policies which work. Well may he leave the chamber, because that was a shameful dismantling. There were 50,000 arrivals, over 800 boats, 1,100 deaths at sea and a blow-out of $11.6 billion in border protection costs. The member for Corio talks about a time warp. I know that we have recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of Dr Who. Perhaps the member for Corio is hoping that Australians will be transported back in time to pre-2007, when we had good governance and we did not have a boat problem. I think that is a forlorn hope.
The opposition simply does not understand that stopping people-smuggling is not about providing daily media opportunities. Information released into the public domain is simply used by people smugglers and their agents in Australia to dupe desperate people into embarking on that perilous and often fatal voyage on the high seas. This is about a sensible, prudent, compassionate but, above all, resolute and consistent approach to managing this problem, in concert with our friends in Indonesia and other countries.
Yes, we are dealing with people—poor, desperate people—but we are also dealing with a multimillion dollar, sophisticated international criminal organisation that trades in people's lives. The way to prevent crime is very simple: it is to attack those who are the masterminds, and the masterminds here are the people smugglers. Is the shadow minister for immigration so naive as not to appreciate that these people have the most sophisticated communications networks? Does he not realise that every piece of information given out by an Australian government is quickly used by them to attract more customers?
I have had the privilege of serving this country abroad in some of the places from where these people come. The people smugglers go to their villages and towns and directly promote their evil trade. They use public commentary and spin to attract more unsuspecting customers. The government will be accountable for our policies, and the success of this policy to date is evidenced, as we heard, by the fact that in the first eight weeks of this government compared to the last eight weeks of the former government there has been an almost 80 per cent reduction in boat arrivals.
But the former government, of which the member for Corio was a senior minister, should also be accountable for their failure in the same area. If Labor had a shred of credibility on this issue some people might listen to them, but they do not. Perhaps they should give the government, the ADF and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service the opportunity to tackle this people-smuggling trade unhindered. I would encourage the member for Corio and his colleagues to reflect on the reasons why governments and agencies like Defence and the department of foreign affairs necessarily protect information. He should reflect on Australia's dimensions of national power, its diplomacy, the informational element of national power, the economic element of national power and, in extremis, the military element of national power.
Good governments do not run thrice-daily news conferences to crow about how they are exercising their elements of national power, because to do so subverts their ability to achieve diplomatic, informational, economic and military effects.
As someone with experience in operational security matters, I can tell you that the reason we do not follow the former Labor-Greens government lead in this regard is that we are determined to protect the integrity of our operations. The member for Greenway demonstrated no understanding of how inter-agency operations are conducted—with the lead agency and supporting agencies. I suggest that she look at that framework. As we have heard from Lieutenant General Campbell, running complex, multi-agency military operations is first and foremost about achieving your mission and ensuring the safety and the force protection of our troops. It is about denying information to our adversary and cycling through the decision process faster and more thoroughly than they do.
The member for Kingsford Smith invoked the name of our troops in Afghanistan. I have served in Afghanistan. Lieutenant General Angus Campbell was recently the commander in Afghanistan. My daughter has done two tours of Afghanistan and every one of the people who has served there would tell him that operational security matters. Those on that side of the House should realise it, and let us get on with fixing the problem they have created.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The discussion is now concluded.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
Mr HOGAN (Page) (16:24): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to the position of Deputy Speaker. I know you will bring great grace and poise to the position. I thank my parliamentary colleagues currently in the chamber who have chosen to share this with me. I woke on 8 September this year with a great sense of gratitude that the people in my community had put their faith and their trust in me to be their representative in this chamber. I am humbled yet also excited about getting on with the job they have entrusted me to do. I have had the privilege of having met all the past members of Page—from Ian Robinson, who was the inaugural member in 1984, Harry Woods, Ian Causley and Janelle Saffin. They have all been good advocates for our community, and I plan to continue in that tradition. I would like to take you on a bird's eye tour of the seat of Page; outline what will be delivered to my community this term; why only a good government can deliver on these promises; and, lastly, acknowledge the support of the people that helped me to be here to represent Page.
Firstly, for those of you who have not had the pleasure of discovering the natural beauty of Page, let me take you on a short journey. I want you to imagine you are a bird and you are flying south. You are on the Queensland-New South Wales border. It is probably the best way to be going. You are 60 kilometres inland from the coast and down below you see a great expanse of grazing country and tree plantations. You then come into view of Woodenbong and you realise you have entered a very special place. Flying down a spectacular valley you see Kyogle, home of the Bush Turkeys and a community that is so proudly self-reliant that 40 years ago when they needed a new road through rugged country they simply cleared the land and built it themselves on voluntary labour.
You veer east at Cedar Point and fly over Bentley before discovering the cosmopolitan regional city of Lismore and its iconic villages. Still heading east, you fly over Alstonville and Wollongbar with its fertile plateau and, if you look left, you will see Paul's macadamia farm and Craig's dairy farm. Flying down the escarpment, you see the vibrant centre of Ballina by the sea, and the Richmond River meeting the ocean. You veer south now and you fly 100 kilometres down the coast over communities such as Evans Head and Woodburn, stunning national parks and fishing boats plying their trade, until in the distance you notice the mighty Clarence River. At its mouth are the fishing and tourism meccas of Yamba and Iluka. You fly upriver past Lawrence and you cannot believe how good this flight is, because now you observe the jacaranda city herself—Grafton.
You then fly up the Nymboida and are overwhelmed by its rugged beauty before turning north over Baryulgil and encountering the magnificent grazing country surrounding Tabulam. Turning east you see the beef capital of Australia, Casino, before nestling quietly into the Richmond Valley for a rest. You have just flown over a very special place, God's own, the electorate of Page. Yet, the physical beauty of a place in which people live does not create a community. I am fortunate to live among a group of people where volunteering and selfless acts are the norm. This is want creates a community, it is want binds us together.
In this parliament, I will be working to improve the lives of the people of Page and strengthen that which holds us together. Our first job has to be to repeal the carbon tax. It was never going to change the climate and it is a job-destroying tax. What is worse, it broke household budgets, particularly those of our ageing population on a fixed income. I also acknowledge that the coalition government will continue to fund the Pacific Highway at a level of 80 per cent federal funding to ensure the quickest possible duplication of this badly-needed infrastructure. The previous government wanted to revert to a 50 per cent funding split that would have pushed out the completion date. More than $5 billion of federal money will be spent on this highway in the next few years and most of it will be in Page. This project will save lives and it will bring hundreds of construction jobs and, on completion, tourism and other businesses will reap the rewards by linking our companies with the large market places of Sydney and Brisbane and bring more tourism to the area. The businesses of Page are also crying out for the government to cut red and green tape. Every day as I walk around my community, they tell me it needs to change. With local business chambers I am already working to find examples of this restrictive red tape that must be thrown in the bin, because these needless regulations are job killers.
I am also looking forward to delivering on the election promises I committed to during the election campaign. As stated: more than $5 billion of federal money to finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway; $4.5 million for the stage 1 upgrade of Ballina hospital; completing the upgrade of the Grafton hockey clubhouse; an investment of almost half a million dollars to provide CCTV in Casino to make our streets safer; completing the Iluka-Woomba Men's Shed; installing a new goalposts at the McKittrick Park in Grafton; a new training centre at the Bunjum Aboriginal Co-op; full restoration of the Bellman Hangar at Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome and the fit-out of the museum; upgrading of the Mid-Richmond Neighbourhood Centre; Green Army projects on Susan Island in Grafton and at Tabulam; and others that are still on the drawing board.
Madam Speaker—I like to have you here and I acknowledge you on the job you have been given and the great poise that you bring to the role—mining and farming can be a delicate balancing act in certain regions. I acknowledge the work done by my coalition colleagues in the New South Wales parliament, tightening up farmer protection in relation to coal seam gas mining in New South Wales. I acknowledge my federal colleagues and our position. Our policy is that water and prime agricultural land, as well as built-up areas, need to be protected from CSG mining. I believe, and in my opinion, so does the majority of my community, that given current extraction techniques this policy currently rules out the electorate of Page from CSG mining.
I would like to explain to this House why I want to represent the people of Page. Good government I believe must come from good values. Good values lead to good decisions and good decisions ensure a good government. So, what are these values? Good values are summarised, I believe, in an Australian colloquialism which expresses whether life is productive or not, and that is the great Australian saying of 'have a go'. Everyone in our country needs to have a go. The reason our country has long punched above its weight is because our nation was built on the 'have a go' philosophy. Everything we do in this chamber needs to support those Australians who are having a go.
This Australian belief, together with the First Australians, who I believe are the guardians of this nation's soul and who give us a spiritual connection with our land, makes us the great country we are. The reason I am a proud member of the Nationals and the coalition government is that I believe we hold the values that support those having a go, that reward entrepreneurship, that support job creation and that care for wellbeing in our communities. Small business and the private sector fund every public service job in this country and therefore need to be nurtured. To provide important social services to our communities we need a healthy private sector to pay for them. And, importantly, it is the Nationals which focus on regional Australia and ensure that regions like mine are not forgotten.
I am naturally an optimistic person, and we as a nation have much to be optimistic about. But we do face challenges. I see challenges divided into three areas: economic, social and environmental. Economically, when you include private debt, we are one of the most indebted countries in the world. We must have a government that is prudent and responsible. When the Australian people want responsible economic management, they always turn to the coalition, as they know we are the only ones who can do this.
Presently, governments around the world are engaging in massive debt creation. Some are also involved in quantitative easing, simply printing money to stimulate an economy—all this within a fiat currency system and the fractional reserve banking model that we operate. Many pitfalls, such as the global financial crisis, can confront such a system, and we need to be prudent.
Socially, Australia is a wonderful example of a rich, diverse multicultural society. We have many institutions which make this system work, not least our public education system. We need to continue to support the role it plays, not only in educating our young but also in building the nation.
Environmentally, we have great challenges as the world population increases. Our farmers are well poised to play a great role in feeding Australia and the world. Indeed, they are doing so now. We do, however, need to get off our farmers' backs, as with all businesses, and let them do what they know how to do without all the red and green tape that currently binds them. Farmers know the demands of their land like no-one else. It was they who understood the concept of sustainability well before the inner city so-called intellectuals stumbled across the word over their lattes and decided they had the right to tell farmers how they should farm and what they can and cannot do.
No-one can campaign for political office and take a seat in parliament without the help of others. I am but the face of a team who put a lot of work into winning this seat for the coalition. Firstly, I wish to thank Ben Franklin and his team at the NSW state Nationals office, especially Ross Cadell, Tony Sarks, Sam Pearn and Nathan Quigley. They always had the faith and belief that we could win this seat and, Ben, we did.
Thank you to my two campaign managers Andrew Gordon and Fay Boyd. Andrew would ring me every day and simply say, 'Kevin, what I can do for you today?' His boundless energy and enthusiasm were crucial and inspiring to me. Fay Boyd garnered troops and resources in the Clarence like a field marshal—you do not say 'no' to Fay. Her dedication and effort were total, and I thank her.
I thank all the federal parliamentary team who visited and helped, especially Warren Truss, Joe Hockey, Barnaby Joyce, Michael McCormack, Darren Chester, Fiona Nash, Luke Hartsuyker, Andrew Laming, Michael Ronaldson, John Williams, Mark Coulton and Michael Keenan. To my three state colleagues for their friendship and support: Chris Gulaptis, Thomas George and Don Page. To all the volunteers, who totalled in the hundreds, and my campaign team. I thank them all. To my office staff, Chris, Peter, Jo and Julie, who are already giving great service to constituent requests.
To my father- and mother-in-law, Kevin and Pat Webber, whose family history traces back many generations in the local community. My father-in-law's family was one the first families to settle at Wyrallah. I thank them for helping keep our home front functioning when the campaign was on.
I am a fourth-generation Australian and, like all families, we have had our highs and lows, one generation wiped out by a hailstorm, others by drought. My mother and father, who have died in recent years, taught me four lessons that stand out: self-responsibility—only I could generate the life I wanted; resilience—when things don't work out, don't give up; compassion for others; and community involvement.
My father, John Hogan, was always the little entrepreneur who looked out for others in his community. He was an electrician in our country town and once did a job for a friend—a biscuit salesman—who was in financial difficulties. Knowing this friend was doing it tough, Dad took the payment in biscuits. I had a great, if not nutritious, week. I am not sure if my mother was all that happy with this form of payment. To my mother, Betty, who showered me in love, belief and prayers, which I know still protect me to this day from the naysayers who tell you why you can't do something or why something won't happen.
To my sisters, Teresa and Sue, who are here today, I thank them and their families for all the decades of looking out for their younger brother. To my sister Marg, who sadly died two weeks before the election, for the laughter she brought to my childhood home. And to my family, my wife, Karen, my best ally and my greatest supporter, every step in my life's journey and endeavour has been with her for 20 years and I feel blessed to have her with me. And, yes, I thought your television ad was a really good one, and better than mine too! To my children, Bridget, Sean and Rosie, if and when you ever have children you may come to realise how much love and purpose you bring to my life.
Lastly, I humbly bring a range of my life experiences to this chamber, and lessons I have learnt. Through my career I invested and traded a multibillion dollar portfolio when I worked in the financial markets and learnt the importance of good economic management. I presented an economic update on Sky News for a number of years. I have been a teacher and understand the importance of education to the fabric of our society. As a farmer and small business owner I know that this is the engine room of our economy As an investment officer of an industry superannuation fund I know the importance of super to people's retirement. But can I say that the greatest privilege I have had is to represent my community in this chamber. And I say to the people of Page, my community, I will always speak for what I believe is in your interests and vote for things that are for the best interests of our community and our great nation of Australia.
The SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Perth, I advise the chamber that this is the maiden speech of the member and ask that the courtesies of the House be extended to her.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (16:41): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and congratulations on your ascent to the chair. Firstly, I want to give my very great thanks to the people of the Perth electorate for the faith that you have placed in me. It is truly a great honour to be elected to represent you and I pledge that I will do my very best to advocate on your behalf and to take our community forward.
The people of Perth know that it was not an easy decision for me to contest the seat. I was loving my gig as Mayor of Vincent and we were doing exciting things there. But what persuaded me with the many punters who rang, emailed, bailed me up on the street and told me that I had a duty to do it. In the end I agreed—there are big issues that need to be addressed nationally. And I have been given the opportunity to learn a few things over the last 25 years or so that could allow me to make a useful contribution to the national debate.
It was the enthusiasm of the Labor supporters that really kept me going during what was a very intense campaign. It was energising to encounter so many people across all demographic groups that still see the Australian Labor Party as a positive force, a force for good in our society. It really put the wind beneath the wings. I also thank those many people who normally are in the blue team who were prepared to support me. To the unions who encouraged and supported me, thank you very much. To the individuals and the businesses that gave us the money to do what had to be done, thank you.
Of course, I want to acknowledge the fantastic people that worked on my campaign. It was a delightfully professional operation. I was so grateful for those always cheerful troops who joined me at the railway stations at 6.30 am, or spent their weekends and evenings at shopping centres, mass leafleting, doorknocking or phone canvassing. To the tremendous team that coordinated the election day presence, you were the best. And to the outdoor campaign, we really blitzed it.
As always, I had extraordinary support from my immediate and extended family and my brilliant friends. I simply could not have done any of my 10 elections and 25 years in public life without your love and faith in me. To my dearest Umi and Atlas, thank you very much for your competitive enthusiasm for the photo ops. And a big thanks to all those who have come today.
I need also to thank my comrades and staff, past and present, from the state parliament. We have been a great team. There are so many people I would like to individually recognise, and I will elsewhere. Guys, you know who you are—and you know I love youse all! But I do need to make special mention of Daniel Pastorelli, the calm and impeccably organised campaign manager, who knows when to hold and knows when to fold. Daniel, this is our second successful campaign together. And a special thanks to Rita Saffioti and John Carey for connecting me with Daniel and for the work that we have all done together for so many years, and to former colleague Tom Stephens who has always been such a great support. To Lenda and Kelly who channelled me on social media, thank you for such a good job of being me. I want especially to acknowledge Steve Keogh and Richard Farrell, loyal friends and spear carriers who have been with me since my very first election, and to my partner, Derek, who insisted I take this on even though he knew it would make his life tougher, thank you so much for your loyalty.
I pay tribute to Stephen Smith, my predecessor, for his 20 long years of dedicated service. Stephen is massively respected across the electorate of Perth and, indeed, across Australia. Not only is he valued as a local member, but people are also proud to see Stephen representing Australia with such distinction and grace in the roles of foreign minister and minister for defence.
Thanks also to another predecessor, my old mate Ric Charlesworth. I had worked on Ric's and Stephen's campaigns and it was great to see them reciprocate so enthusiastically. And if I could just illustrate the strength of the Labor tradition in Perth, it was poignant to have the grandson and great-grandson of another of my predecessors, Tom Burke, working on the campaign.
I will go light on the autobiography—I am a little bit over me. I will just say that I grew up with an enormously strong sense of being an Australian—a strong attachment to the landscape, an understanding that the opportunities that we enjoyed were brought to us by generations who fought for universal suffrage, a fair wages system and free education. I grew up with a deep fondness of Aboriginal people and an understanding of the value of embracing our black history and healing the wounds of the past. I always understood that these things do not just happen. In a democracy you cannot say that someone should do something—that someone is you.
Here are a few of the things that I think should be done. I have come to understand why so many Australians are leaving school after 10 to 12 years unable to confidently read and write. The Productivity Commission report on literacy and labour market skills cited evidence that more than 40 per cent of working age Australians did not have the literacy and numeracy to effectively participate in society. International studies reflect that the last major study ranked Australian last in literacy in the seven English-speaking nations assessed.
Some seven years ago, Lee Musameci, the principal at Challis, a government school cluster in my then seat of Armadale, challenged me to get involved with her school's determination not to accept that their students should be doomed to the pattern of failure that has been accepted for decades. Like many, I had wondered why so many kids seem to struggle at school and why there were so many children with learning difficulties. What I learnt from firsthand observation and from my work as a chair of a parliamentary committee and from working with extraordinarily dedicated principals, teachers, academics and researchers, is that our prevailing pedagogy is actually creating the problem. We are generating 'instructional casualties' by allowing the 'whole language' pedagogy to retain its ascendancy in our instruction of literacy—and I might say to the Minister for Education that this is not a party political issue; this is a problem that has been with us for at least two if not three decades. In this whole language belief system, reading is acquired naturally as speech is. The emphasis is on creating a word-rich environment and encouraging the guessing of the written word from pictorial clues and context. But the research shows us over and over again that while there are students who can learn to read in this way, many do not. It is an approach that particularly fails kids from lower socioeconomic and Aboriginal backgrounds. It may even disadvantage boys.
The written word is a code and we need to train children to decode it in a systematic and highly structured way. Teaching to this code will see 95 to 97 per cent of children learn to read readily. This is not a right-wing 'back-to-basics' campaign, nor is it a campaign to remove creativity from learning and teaching. It is a campaign to stop the education of so many Australians particularly those from less privileged backgrounds from being undermined by a few hundred academics and mid-ranking state education bureaucrats whose attachment to whole language and its mongrel child, the 'balanced approach', is prioritised over science. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the teachers union. When confronted with endemic failure, these proponents blame poor parenting and the fact that many kids are coming to school with developmental vulnerabilities. And this is true, and here I want to acknowledge the invaluable insight we have into this problem through the Australian Early Development Index.
It is true we all need to improve the development of zero- to three-year-olds, but even without that we can be delivering so much more in the school system. Indeed, these developmental challenges make it even more necessary that we get the instructional technique right and not muck around with methodologies that have no scientific backing. Explicit instruction of these skills is not boring or cruel. I have seen classrooms of four- and five-year-olds totally engaged as they learn sounds, letters, blends and grammar. Not only do they learn to read, they learn to succeed. I have witnessed an incredible turnaround in test results in schools who have challenged the orthodoxy. We cannot keep talking about the value of education unless we address this basic building block. Literacy is the foundation stone of our transmission of knowledge.
We need to build on the national infrastructure we have in place with ACARA and NAPLAN but we must insist that the clear direction of rigorous research be embedded in the national curriculum. We need to ensure that NAPLAN does not mask the problem by setting a minimum standard so low that it is a meaningless guide to functional literacy. We need to ensure our university faculties of education embrace scientific rigour. This is truly a national issue. It goes directly to our future as a nation, which must compete globally. We cannot walk away from this.
Nor can we walk away from the challenges presented by global warming—its reality, its cause and the response. It has been appalling to watch how the consensus that existed across Australia in 2007 has been destroyed. Unlike most of my colleagues, I do not believe that the Prime Minister is a climate change denier—that would merely indicate scientific illiteracy. This is something much worse. This is a moral indifference to what happens beyond one's own political horizon.
The opportunity to wedge the community was spotted as many were transferring their worry quotient from climate change to the global financial crisis. It was ruthlessly exploited. The government is abandoning not only a price on carbon but all the associated architecture established to give us the scientific and economic advice and to provide the much-needed vehicle for investment and vehicles for research and development of renewable energy technology.
Pricing of carbon has worked. It has reduced our emissions from the electricity sector by 6.1 per cent while at the same time the economy has grown by 2.5 per cent. It is interesting to look at how focused we are on honouring the sacrifice of former generations of Australians at war. We understandably speak with reverence of the culture of duty and sacrifice at the front line and on the home front. But we are now hearing that Australians today cannot be asked to accept any inconvenience or impost, no matter how great the threat.
By not confronting the problem now, not only will it make it hard to address later but we lose the opportunity to be at the forefront of technological development. We will see the easy option taken. And, just as the Australian economy became flabby and uncompetitive under tariff barriers, it will languish under a carbon protection scheme. Australians see that the climate is changing. They get that there is a risk. But we need the leadership of solutions. We need to inspire the community with the vision of a 21st century technology that can turn this challenge into an opportunity.
I am also a committed advocate for Western Australia. A brief bit of my history here might be relevant. At the age of 18, I was given a one-way air ticket to Perth organised by my older siblings. Thanks, guys! This adventure totally changed the direction of my life. I loved Perth immediately. It was sunny. People were good natured and totally welcoming. Some used to say that Perth was good from the neck down, but I never believed that enjoying life was incompatible with intelligence, compassion and engagement. Ever since then, with a couple of work stints in Melbourne and Sydney, I have been living in WA. I have never regretted that decision. I have well and truly had the operation.
Some eastern staters, even on my own side, think that we are a mob of whingers. Indeed, until I became a minister in the WA government, I thought my beloved fellow West Aussies were a little bit neurotic about the eastern states' attitude to WA. I soon learned the errors of my way when I started attending the ministerial transport council in 2001—
An opposition member interjecting—
Ms MacTIERNAN: and saw how off the radar we were—yes, in 2001 it changed—and that the cause of this was not hostility but unfamiliarity. The east-coasters had travelled on each other's roads but not on ours. WA was almost a foreign country. I always remember that around 2003 I obtained a leaked copy of the proposed new national transport plan charting the roads that would attract Commonwealth funding. The east coast was crisscrossed like a game of snakes and ladders, joining all those economically important towns: Tamworth, the Stand by Your Man capital; Mildura, very important for dried fruit; Shepparton, which does canned fruits—all very important. But I pointed out that WA just had one road east and one road north, and it did not even include the Burrup. I was asked, not, 'Where's the Burrup?' but, 'What's the Burrup?' It was, of course, one of the major export-earning areas for the country, producing vast tonnages of natural gas and iron ore.
It has often been pointed out that WA for many years has been the net beneficiary of Commonwealth transfers, but people are not so familiar with the fact that WA's future development was actually held back for a good decade by federal policy indifferent to our needs. Most of Australia's iron ore is in WA, and, in the latter half of the 1930s, Japanese interests wished to reopen and expand mines that were there. The government of the day understandably did not want to offend the Japanese but did not want to facilitate their war effort, so they deliberately sexed down the estimates of our iron ore reserves and said to the Japanese, 'Oh gosh, sorry, we don't have much of the stuff; we'll need to keep it for our own use,' a totally sensible posture at the time. Of course, once the war was over, Western Australians just presumed that the truth would prevail, but throughout the 1950s the federal government refused to lift the ban, and it was not until 1960 that WA was allowed to export iron ore—to commence development for the export of iron ore and to take that great leap forward.
Today WA gets 44c in every GST dollar it collects under a deal negotiated by conservative governments of Howard and Court. I do not expect the GST arrangements to change anytime soon, but there are many other ways in which funding metrics are designed for the economic structures of the eastern seaboard and in that way are skewed against our very different economy.
We are growing rapidly. Our contribution to GDP has gone up from 10 to 14 per cent in the last 10 years. To sustain this extraordinary growth, we do need more federal assistance with infrastructure. I want to particularly acknowledge the support of Martin Ferguson and the then minister for infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, for being so responsive to our case and for massively boosting federal spending in WA infrastructure, even making the investment into those previously off-the-map Pilbara port roads.
But it is not only road funding that we need. Perth is growing by 1,000 people a week, and our public transport needs some massive investment to keep our city functioning. It is an environmental issue, as private passenger transport is a major contributor to our carbon footprint. It is also an increasingly important social issue, with family and community life being compromised by long commute times and residents of outer suburbs spending as much as 20 per cent of their income on private transport. And it is an economic issue: 78 per cent of Western Australians live in greater metropolitan Perth. It is a population that drives the mining industry that is fuelling our national economy.
Indeed, 80 per cent of Australians live in big cities. More than ever, we need a federal government that understands the economic importance of cities and how central mobility is to exploiting the diversity and specialisation of skills that are at the heart of the economic benefit of a city. I had the opportunity to oversee the doubling of Perth's passenger rail system in just six years. We showed that, if you provide first-class public transport alternatives, commuters will convert in droves. We saw public transport use in the area increase immediately by more than 350 per cent and substantial increases in patronage across the network. Expanding the network makes the entire network more attractive.
It is preposterous that we have a federal government that says, 'We don't do cities and we don't do metropolitan rail.' When was the last time we actually had a Liberal federal transport minister or a conservative federal transport minister from the city? I am very proud to be part of the Labor team that has a long commitment to the cities and to delivering the infrastructure that will allow the cities to thrive and to provide their residents with a good life, and that is what we are here for: to understand and deliver those things that we need as a community to allow each and every Australian to have their place in the sun. It is as simple as that.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member for Lyne, I remind the House that this is his maiden speech. I ask the House to afford the courtesies that have been given to the last two members.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (17:01): It is with great honour and pride that I occupy this seat in the 44th Australian Parliament. The privilege and responsibility bestowed upon me and our government by the people of Lyne, where we have lived for the last 21 years, is foremost in my mind. This building and this national capital are by no means strange places to me, as I actually grew up across the border in Queanbeyan. I am one of seven children who grew up in an old house that had my father's busy general practice in the front two rooms. Patients would turn up at the door, so life as a child was pretty busy. Life in Australia and life in Queanbeyan was different then. It was very much a country town. As I grew up, our country's multicultural heritage was starting to blossom, with migrants from all nations descending on Queanbeyan. Many from the freshly completed Snowy Mountains scheme had arrived to build our nation's capital.
Also, like many generations of Australians, my parents worked damn hard to advance our family's interests and put us all through a stellar education. I grew up with a father who was a doctor and a mother who was a nurse and had a general practice in our front living room so it is not too surprising that I ended up in medicine. But as well as great parents, along the way I had some great teachers. I would like to acknowledge some of them. Brother Thomas Moore, my sixth class teacher, developed my interest in public affairs and history. The late Father Charles Frazer developed my exposure to classics and the early philosophers. During my medical student years I had some great teachers, including the late Dr Roman Judzeiwicz and after that Professor Ian Cook, David de Carle, Chris Vickers and many others. All of these teachers, my parents and friends taught me as much by example and deed as by words.
From my father, a vociferous and passionate follower and commentator on all things political, I must have inherited the political gene. After dabbling and being interested in student politics, the pressures and the commitments of an all-consuming medical career dragged me away from politics, but I have returned now after years of on-call, study and training to become a gastroenterologist.
My wife and I, like so many young families, migrated up the North Coast to a place called Port Macquarie on the banks of the Hastings River so I could practise my profession and raise a family. When we arrived in Port Macquarie by necessity I had to also become a small business man, because there was no endoscopy facility at all, even though they had employed me as an endoscopist and gastroenterologist. So I had to learn about business, finance, employment and all the things that occur with small business. We have been involved in the beef production industry personally and we have a long family heritage of trying to make a living out of the land. So I do not come here with a MBA but I come here with real-life experience in the front lines of medicine and with the responsibility of business and the weight of 14 pay packets on my mind for decades or more.
When politics becomes very dysfunctional politics starts to invade people's lives. Four or five years ago I thought that I could shout at the TV for the rest of my life and throw the paper in disgust or get involved in politics. I graduated from commentating on politics at dinner parties to actually being involved. That comment, 'They should do this,' is us, so we have a weighty responsibility upon us.
A government should encourage entrepreneurs. It should allow individuals to exercise their initiative, innovate and reap the rewards of their risk, their hard work and the finance that they put up rather than taxing the arse off them. In public administration my aspiration is to keep all levels of government as small and as efficient as possible, otherwise each level consumes another portion of our taxpayers' wealth.
Our defence capability defines us. It lets us trade with the world in peace and it is our nation's insurance. It should have size and reserves so that we can stand on our own if required. Whilst treaties and allies are central to our defence, we cannot scrimp on our responsibilities and subcontract them to our allies.
The key hallmarks of our system of liberal democracy which we have inherited from Britain should never be taken for granted. It seems trite to talk about the freedom of speech, the rule of law, the separation of powers, property rights and the primacy of the individual as long as they do not impinge on the rights of others, but really if property rights are being removed in part or in whole by the government—and governments can do that—they should offer compensation or they should return the property right. Freedom of speech should be protected and it should not be muffled or diluted by the passing fashions of perceived political correctness. The principle of free markets is to be encouraged, but in the extreme it can lead to a monopolised market, which is then no longer free or fair. That is only where government should intervene. Treaties with nations or other bodies should share common aspirations and goals, but we should not ever sign away our sovereign powers.
Henry Parkes and his colleagues did a sterling job with our Constitution, with the division of responsibilities and the definition of public administration between state and federal, but there are some things in our federation that I think need fixing. We should, firstly, complete it with appropriate recognition of our Indigenous peoples. Initially the roles of the Commonwealth and the states roughly matched their revenue. Roles and responsibilities were very clear, but now—due to changes in the taxing power that happened during the two world wars, the growth of a social welfare system that was nowhere to be seen in 1900, and the growth of bureaucracies at all three levels of government—there is a growing funding disparity and a blurring of responsibilities. There is increasing waste and duplication between the Commonwealth and the states. We seem to have a creeping and confused federalism, where the federal government is continuing to assume the responsibilities of the states and, on occasions, vice versa.
Another thing is the voting system for the Senate, a system that defines who gets into the other place. As we have just witnessed, the voting system that produces senators appears to be structurally flawed and it potentially could again deliver outcomes that seem inconsistent with the intention of the voters. I think it is time to re-evaluate.
There is another frustration that is expressed within the community—and I certainly heard about it as I doorknocked thousands of houses, clocking up 48,000 kilometres and two sets of shoes—that is, a frustration with so many elections. Also there is a frustration with the inability for any government to deliver their agenda within one term, and I suppose that is why we hardly ever see a one-term government anymore. But I think too much energy goes into electioneering rather than governing. One conclusion is that the three-year term for this House is too short to deliver that agenda. Some Australian states seem to survive democracy with four-year terms, we install senators for six years and our founding democratic system in Westminster has run with five-year terms for generations—again, we need to re-evaluate.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the achievements of five previous members of my electorate, and it is my intention to build on their achievements, not to disparage them. I would like to personally thank two previous members: one who is now deceased, the late Bruce Cowan, for his personal help, as well as former Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile.
The Lyne electorate and its natural wonders remain one of our greatest assets. We have golden sands on many iconic beaches; we have Crescent Head in the north to Hallidays Point in the south. We have verdant coastal plains that are guarded by the sentinel Three Brothers mountain range on the coast. And it reaches west to the mountain ranges. We have mighty rivers running from the mountains down to the sea: the Macleay in the north, the Hastings and the Camden Haven in the middle, and the mighty Manning in the south. My electorate encompasses the ancestral home of the Daingatti, Biripai and Worimi people, who have lived there for millennia; it has been my family's home only for the past 21 years.
Lyne electorate's cities, towns and villages have all played a part in the history of Australia. John Oxley reached the Hastings River back in 1818, and Port Macquarie was the third penal settlement in the colony. Free enterprise settlers from the Australian Agricultural Company—AA Co.—reached the Manning in 1831. One of our pre-Federation state members was our first Prime Minister, Edmund Barton. And now, decades later, we have major centres in Port Macquarie, Wauchope, Laurieton, Camden Haven, Taree Wingham and Gloucester. They are all great communities with happy people who work hard, who volunteer and try to get ahead.
Migration north out of the cities is a phenomenon the whole country has seen, but we have swelled with retirees and young families seeking cheap housing. We have many secondary industries that have grown up behind our initial primary industries of timber, fishing, beef and dairy: we have steel fabricators, coalminers, a large construction and housing industry, marine and boat builders and defence contractors. The service and professional economies have grown enormously: we have regional administration, banking and a large not-for-profit sector. We also have a huge age and healthcare sector and a large and growing sector of education providers and trainers. Tourism and hospitality have also become critical to our region.
On the surface it looks great, but underneath there are many challenges my electorate faces that mirror those of the nation. The previous wealth generators—timber and fishing and dairy—are being challenged by aggressive restriction of resources, particularly in timber and fishing. The dairy and beef industries suffer from low commodity prices. Aggressive market behaviour and poor bargaining powers made a bad situation worse. These and all the other industries need long-term security for their primary resources to allow new investment, and we need to reduce the cost of business so that they can attract new investment.
Many robust small businesses have weathered the changes in our economy, but unfortunately in my electorate 300 have gone by the wayside since 2009. The complexities and costs thrust upon them by red, green and industrial tape, and that aggressive market behaviour I referred to earlier, have created challenges that were too great for them.
The other problem in my electorate is that large sections of Lyne's communities rely in part or wholly on the government for their incomes because of poor educational outcomes, unemployment and family breakdown. The best thing a government can do is to deliver policies that build stronger families, effective early learning, subsequent completion of education and training and conditions so that businesses, not governments, can generate jobs.
Infrastructure is so important—our roads, our rail links, air and telecommunications form the arteries of commerce and tourism. They are all in need of a serious upgrade in our area. That is why it is so important that we do complete the duplication of the Pacific Highway to the Queensland border and our other regional transport links that we have committed to, like the Bucketts Way that will link the Manning Valley and Gloucester primary and secondary industries. I want to deliver the things I have campaigned on—Green Army projects, the tennis court upgrades in Port Macquarie and CCTV to make our streets, where there is a high incidence of crime, safer.
The North Coast rail system is a relic. It transports bulk freight along with tens of thousands of tourists. People talk about the 'very fast train', but in our part of the world on the North Coast we have to deal with the very slow train. I would like to achieve some upgrades of that in my time.
Our health system, which is the envy of many countries, is under strain. It is essentially underwritten by our federal government, whether it is direct grants to the states through Medicare or all the other bits in between. The taxpayer is being a giant self-insurer. We need to have an insurance system that removes the risk from the taxpayer by encouraging widely held health insurance. If it is widely held we get community rating principle and it becomes cheaper, not more expensive, and then it is affordable to the average family. It then protects our public health system and can be a second funding stream for it, like it used to be, and allow delivery of timely health care to the people of Australia. That is why it is so vital that in the long term we remain committed to it.
The ageing population will continue to place huge demands on Australian population. We have been living that for many years, because in Lyne we have double the aged population average of the country.
We talk about the northern food bowl and the potential there, but there is huge potential in our part of the country. The Lyne electorate's fertile valleys and those of the mid-North Coast could contribute extensively to food production—again, if upscaling of agriculture occurs and food processing is added into the value-adding chain.
In Taree we have a hidden jewel called the Manning River, but the potential for increased boat building, tourism, property development, marine services and many other industries lies dormant because the river mouth is unnavigable most of the time. Unfinished infrastructure at its mouth would be great to complete to allow those potentials to become realities.
I am very honoured to be entering this parliament as a member of The Nationals. Our party has a long and proud history in this place. I want to make sure that myself and our party have a long record of achievement for our electorates and the regions—both a voice at the cabinet table and through the other sections of executive government.
My journey here was not a solo voyage and I have so many people to thank. I would like to thank the party and my electorate for placing faith in me and I would like to thank all those parliamentarians and other party members who came to help me in the campaign, including your good self, Madam Speaker. I would like to thank frontbenchers Barnaby Joyce, Nigel Scullion, Fiona Nash, Luke Hartsuyker, Bruce Billson, Julie Bishop, Michael Ronaldson, Michael Keenan, Darren Chester, Michael McCormack and 'Wacka' Williams.
I would particularly like to thank my great friend, confidant, adviser and mentor of many years—our good Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a man whom I have known since childhood. He comes from a wonderful family, some of whom are up in the chamber and I have known them all for many years. He is a man of the highest integrity and I know he is already making a great Prime Minister and leader of our nation. PM, thank you so much for your help and support.
I would like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss. Warren brings a wealth of experience and wisdom to the leadership of our government and our nation—and he certainly got the frequent flyer points up coming to our electorate.
I would like to thank the people in our party. I would like to thank New South Wales head office under the guidance of Ben Franklin and all the others in his team, including is people on the ground—Tom Aubert, Hugh O'Dwyer, Ross Cadell and Elissa Wynn.
I would like to thank people from my 2010 campaign—Georgie McDuling, Bill Yates, James Dunn, Rob Nardella and Peter Loveday—who were there for the long run. I would also like to thank my mother and father and the late Daphne Filtness for their enduring love and instilling a sense of confidence in me. I would like to thank my brothers and sisters for their collective years of advice and help. I would also like to thank my electorate chairman, Jane Corcoran; my campaign manager Terry Sara; and the federal secretariat help and director, Christine Ferguson.
I cannot thank all of the 732 people who helped me in the campaign, but down in Gloucester I would like to mention Don Dunlop and his team; the Taree team headed up by Arthur Chapman, Warren Young and Craig Webster; and all those who helped over at Old Bar, including Jane Vincent.
Ladies and gentlemen, when we get into this House, so many of our decisions have so many ramifications for so many people. It is a great honour and a great privilege. I would like to tell the people in my electorate that I am so honoured and privileged to be your ombudsman both with all of us here and the executive government. As members of this House we are a voice for our electorates. We on this side of the chamber—admittedly we have gone over the edge—speak with a voice of common-sense, reason and real life experience, and we believe in the 'keep it simple' principle.
Ladies and gentlemen: I will work tirelessly for my electorate and I will work tirelessly for the nation so that we all reach our possibilities. We all have great potential and it is important that as Australians we make sure that all of us get a chance to shine, to take our risks, to bite the bullet and do it. Thank you very much.
Debate adjourned.
BILLS
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (17:23): I continue and conclude my remarks on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013. It is quite extraordinary, because it is arguable that this tax cost more to raise than it delivered to the government in revenue. One company told me that it would have cost $3 million—it could have been as high as $7 million—to actually collect this tax and send it to the government. Because we have allowed all of these companies to be foreign owned, and they are making massive profits sometimes, I think there may be a bit of a case with iron ore, coal or something like that. But the people of Kennedy will be delivering our vote and our support to abolish this tax and get rid of it. If there is some idea that comes back in another form it might be worth looking at, but we are in favour of this bill and will vote accordingly.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Deputy Speaker) (17:25): I rise to speak on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013. I want to make a few remarks in the limited time I have available. I represent the seat of Maranoa in the state of Queensland and, of course, Queensland is a powerhouse when it comes to natural resources. We have seen so many projects stalled as a result of the previous government's introduction of not only the carbon tax but also this minerals resource rent tax which has collected nothing but has driven so much investment offshore.
In my electorate I have the Tarong power station at Stanwell near Kingaroy. There is a new mine there, the Meandu mine, which was purchased to secure the long-term coal source for the Tarong power station. There is also the Kogan Creek power station, just west of Dalby, and of course the Wilkie Creek coal mine near Dalby, which has had to lay off staff recently. I know that they are significantly worried about their future. These are people who live in the town of Dalby or who come off farms. They are farm workers or members of families who own farms and have been able to get a job at the Wilkie Creek mine. This enables them, in these difficult farming times, to keep the family and the farm together. But I know, as I talk to the people of Peabody and the local workers and the management there, that they have real problems trying to keep the mine viable. Another driving factor behind that is this minerals resource rent tax, which puts a dark cloud over the investment.
In the Galilee Basin in my electorate, way back in 1981 the Queensland department of mines at the time estimated that there were resources there of some 800 million tonnes near Alpha. In 2008, Waratah Coal announced the discovery of 4,400 million tonnes of coal still sitting there in the ground. I am sure that the investment opportunities there would not be lost in this chamber, but I make the point that here is another project that has investors worried, because if a minerals resource rent tax applies to such an investment, and there is a potential for jobs that could be created from that investment, it is sitting on hold. Companies like GVK, Hancock Coal and Waratah Coal are all there, waiting, I am sure, to see this minerals resource rent tax abolished—which gives them greater confidence to proceed with the project. There are the Glencore Xstrata leases there at Wandoan. It was going to export something like 30 million tonnes of coal a year. And now they have done all the work and it is sitting there. They have proven up and they have gone into arrangements to purchase land. They were going to build a railway line—in a standard gauge, for heaven's sake—from Wandoan to Gladstone, which would have been a terrific step forward in rail in Queensland, I have got to say, to start to see some standard gauge rail built. But it sits there on hold, and I understand that Glencore—I am advised by the member for Flynn—are rather keen to sell their port facility or access at Gladstone, because they have very real doubt as to the viability of that mine whilst ever this minerals resource rent tax hangs over the Wandoan project.
It is not just the Wandoan project there. If that railway line were built, other mines would also develop with smaller operators in the area and this would create jobs—not only for workers who would come from near and far but also for the many farmers and their children in the near area who would get jobs, which would enable them to keep the farm because there would be another income coming into the family.
The other thing that is a great irony is that the Labor Party said that this minerals resource rent tax would generate some $26.5 billion over five years—and how much has it raised? Four hundred million dollars. But they went out and started to commit the money. One of those projects was a $7 million contribution to the levy bank at Roma to protect the town of Roma from future flooding. They announced it but they did not sign the contract. But they had it in the budget. When we came to government I had to go to the Deputy Prime Minister, who said, 'We will honour that project', notwithstanding that there had not been a contract signed. I was delighted to think that, on this side of the House, we will sign these contracts. We are a mature government and we will operate in a businesslike manner.
The SPEAKER: It being 5.30 pm, in accordance with the resolution agreed to yesterday, I call the parliamentary secretary.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (17:30): I have not said a word and I am already getting heckled by the opposition. It shows the tone that they present in this House. I rise to provide a summary in terms of debate around the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013.
I must say, it has been very interesting and instructive to listen to the debate that has been put forward in this chamber throughout the debate surrounding this particular bill. In particular I take interest in the contribution made by the shadow Treasurer. It was quite fascinating to see the way the shadow Treasurer—and, indeed, through the shadow Treasurer, the Labor Party—continues to not appreciate in any way shape or form the serious challenges that lie before the government to repair the damage that was initiated by the Labor Party.
In particular I was fascinated that the shadow Treasurer, in his contribution here at the dispatch box, made comments—a number of which were quite erroneous—with respect to the operation of the MRRT. I was quite fascinated to hear the contribution—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr CIOBO: I take the interjection from the shadow Treasurer about the contribution that I made on The Nation. The Labor Party has the view that their minerals resource rent tax had no impact in terms of the mining sector. I have an interesting article from The Sydney Morning Herald, from 24 August 2012. The headline is: 'Taxes a drag on coal, Kloppers warns investors'. I just want to highlight that Marius Kloppers was of course a CEO of the Big Australian, as BHP is known. The lead paragraph says:
BHP Billiton head Marius Kloppers has told European investors that Australia's carbon and mining taxes have helped to render the nation's coal industry unworthy of further investment at this time.
For the benefit of the member opposite, I will table that article. It is quite extraordinary. You see, the head of the Big Australian makes it crystal clear that Labor's minerals resource rent tax was an impediment to investment in this country. But Labor continues to deny it. What's more, they even made comment—and I quote the shadow Treasurer—who said:
On this side of the House—
That is of course the opposition side—
we believe that a profits based tax on profits from the minerals sector—minerals which belong to the Australian people—is a good reform. That is not to say that it does not have its challenges in implementation, it does not have its challenges in design.
There is an understatement if ever I heard one. If there is an understatement today, the prize has to go to the shadow Treasurer.
The shadow Treasurer talks about the minerals resource rent tax that the Labor Party introduced. When it was first introduced, it was meant to raise $49.5 billion. Then Labor said, 'Well, we anticipate that it will actually be a little less than that, and we anticipate that it will raise somewhere around $24 billion'. But then, what do we actually know? What did Labor do? Labor, after announcing their minerals resource rent tax, hitched a whole amount of expenditure in relation to it, some $16 billion worth of expenditure.
The extraordinary thing about Labor's contribution and the so-called challenges in design and challenges in terms of implementation—the understatement that came from the shadow Treasurer—is that as a consequence of the poor implementation and the poor design of Labor's minerals resource rent tax we actually have a situation where, by abolishing this act, this tax, we will be saving Australian taxpayers $13.4 billion. That is a net saving of $13.4 billion. So it is a tax that was initially meant to raise $49.5 billion but in net terms has actually only raised $400 million; and by abolishing it we save Australians some $13 billion. The shadow Treasurer say, 'Look, there's a couple of challenges around design and implementation, but they are just little challenges'—
Mr Bowen: Is the schoolkids bonus a good thing or a bad thing?
Mr CIOBO: We have another interjection from the shadow Treasurer. Let's talk about the schoolkids bonus. I notice that the shadow Treasurer made further comments in his contribution. Again, let me quote:
The minerals resource rent tax was never designed to pay for the schoolkids bonus. If you look at the announcements at the time, the minerals resource rent tax was never introduced to pay for the schoolkids bonus.
He is nodding in agreement. How fascinating. Perhaps the shadow Treasurer should have had a chat to the former finance minister, because Penny Wong made this comment on 891 ABC Adelaide, Drive with Michael Smith, on 6 June 2012. Let me read back to you, Shadow Treasurer, what your finance minister at the time said: 'I think it is about making sure we use the benefits of the boom wisely,' and 'I think the government's approach with the mining tax and making sure the benefits of that flow through to families, particularly low- and middle-income families through the schoolkids bonus—where people get assistance for kids' education costs—does that.' That is what the former finance minister said and—
Mr Bowen: That's what you've got?
Mr CIOBO: That is what I have, Shadow Treasurer. I have the former Labor finance minister who makes it very clear on radio that Labor's failed mining tax was directly linked back to the schoolkids bonus. But Labor comes in here and says: 'Don't worry about that. That's not what our focus is. Don't worry about what Marius Kloppers says; he's only CEO of the Big Australian, BHP. Don't worry about the fact that we predicted that our mining tax would raise $49.5 billion and it has only raised $400 million. Don't worry about the fact that by abolishing the mining tax you are actually going to save Australian taxpayers some $13 billion. They're just details. If you can get past that, it is a great tax. It is a wonderful tax.'
There has been a change in government. We are not going to follow Labor's approach. We are not going to have an approach that sees Australian taxpayers borrowing money from offshore to pay to Aussie kids, because the reality is that is intergenerational theft. While the Labor Party might be happy to support intergenerational theft, make no mistake, the coalition does not support intergenerational theft. Although Labor Party members might like to trumpet themselves in question time and might like to trumpet themselves around electorates around as being defenders of Aussie families, the reality is that the Labor Party cannot look Aussie kids in the eye and say to them: 'We are going to borrow billions of dollars to hand out as a cash splash because it is going to make the Labor Party popular.' Shame on the Australian Labor Party for saying that they are happy to hock Aussie kids up to their eyeballs so they can run around electorates and claim that they are great defenders of Australian families.
The reality is there has been a change of government. The adults are back in charge and we are repealing this tax because it is bad for investment, because we do not support putting Aussie kids into further debt despite the fact the Labor Party like to pretend that they are about defending them. In addition to that, we support the repeal of this tax because it is a bad tax that has added compliance costs, that has not raised revenue but has some $13-plus billion of additional expenditure attached to it. That is the reason why we are going to start the long process of recovery towards getting our deficit under control and starting the long process of repaying the mountain of debt that has been left by the Labor Party.
I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The bill that is currently before the House does repeal the minerals resource rent tax, the mining tax, as well as discontinuing or rephasing those expense measures that the former government linked to its failed mining tax. Together, the measures contained in this bill represent a significant step in repairing the damage wrought by the former government on the nation's finances, delivering more than $13 billion in savings over the forward estimates. The interest saving associated with this improvement in the budget's bottom line from the repeal of the mining tax package is around $1 billion over the forward estimates, a billion-dollar saving in interest alone.
This bill repeals more than $16 billion of mining tax related measures which are not covered by the proceeds of the mining tax. This takes the total improvement to the budget's bottom line across the forward estimates to more than $14 billion. I have already outlined that when Prime Minister Rudd in 2010 announced the superprofits tax, as it was then called, it was meant to raise $49.5 billion but has raised a net total of $400 million—what an abject failure and what a legacy from the Australian Labor Party.
The mining tax is paid by fewer than 20 taxpayers. Yet around 145 entities have been required to submit mining tax instalment notices while making no net payments—that is, around 145 taxpayers who are complying with the mining tax legislation, but are not actually paying any tax. Those would be those difficulties in implementation and design that the Shadow Treasurer talks about that they would like us to conveniently ignore. Millions of dollars are being wasted by those in the mining industry complying with a complex tax which barely raises enough revenue to justify its existence. And, worse, this tax has worsened the budget's bottom line and only added to Australia's record of debt and deficit.
Schedule 1 of this bill seeks to repeal the mining tax with effect from 1 July 2014. The mining tax is a complex tax which imposes a significant regulatory and compliance burden on the iron ore and coalmining industries. With mining investment at or near its peak, a transition to new sources of economic growth is needed. The repeal of the mining tax will boost business confidence, which is critical to investment and jobs, and will reduce a significant compliance burden for the mining industry.
Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to repeal the mining tax related loss carry-back provisions which enable companies making a tax loss of up to $1 million in the 2012-13 income year, and subsequent years, to recoup taxes paid on an equivalent amount of taxable income in a recent income year. From the 2013-14 income year, companies will be able to carry their tax losses forward to use as a deduction for a future year. The repeal of this measure will save $950 million over the forward estimates.
Schedule 3 of the bill amends the instant asset write-off threshold provisions so that from 1 January 2014, small business entities will not be able to immediately deduct for the value of a depreciating asset that costs less than $1,000 in the income year the asset is first used or installed ready for use. While the government does not like repealing this measure, it is left with little choice given the state of the budget. The repeal of this measure will save $2.3 billion over the forward estimates.
Schedule 4 of the bill also provides that from 1 January 2014, motor vehicle purchases made by small business entities are subject to the same tax treatment as other depreciating assets. We should note that the government has overturned the former government's $1.8 billion fringe benefits tax grab on motor vehicles which was a hit to workers who salary sacrificed their motor vehicles. Again, an unfortunate measure but one that will provide savings of $450 million to the budget over the forward estimates.
Schedule 5 of the bill seeks to repeal the expansion of the income tax exploration provisions to geothermal energy exploration. Going forward this will mean that geothermal energy exploration and prospecting expenditure is not immediately deductible. The removal of this measure will save $10 million over the forward estimates.
Schedule 6 of the bill seeks to delay further increases in the superannuation guarantee rate by two years. Businesses are contending with high operating costs and current challenging economic conditions, which are placing pressures on their viability and their ability to employ people. The pausing of this measure will contribute $1.6 billion to the budget's bottom line.
Schedule 7 seeks to abolish the low-income superannuation contribution to ensure that it is not payable in respect of concessional contributions made after 1 July 2013. The government is currently borrowing money to pay for these concessions, and repealing this measure will contribute $2.7 billion to the budget's bottom line.
Schedule 8 seeks to repeal the income support bonus. This bonus was intended to be funded from the anticipated revenue from the mining tax in the May 2012 budget. The government will be required to borrow money to pay for this commitment and the bill seeks to repeal it. Doing so will save the budget $1.1 billion over the forward estimates.
Schedule 9 seeks to repeal the schoolkids bonus. As I already outlined, the opposition claims there was never a link but the fact is that the former minister for finance made that link very clear. The result as a removal of this measure will deliver budget savings of $4.5 billion over the forward estimates period.
For these reasons, the passage of this bill is very important that it be passed by the House. This is the start of the journey of repair to undo the mountain of debt and deficit left by Labor. Guaranteed, we cannot promise to be the Santa Claus that the Labor Party wants to be, promising all sorts of things to all sorts of people but with borrowed money. The coalition is responsible, and I commend this bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The question now before the House is that the bill now be read a second time. In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I put the question that the bill be read a second time.
The House divided. [17:49]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (17:56): Today, a government which say they care about cost of living have ripped money away from Australian families. Today, a government which say they care about small business have increased tax on small business. Today, as members leave the chamber, a government which say they care about red tape for small business have increased red tape for small business. Where is the member for Kooyong whose job it is to reduce red tape? He just voted to increase red tape for small business. Every member opposite, with all their rhetoric about small business, just voted to increase taxation on Australia's small businesses. All their rhetoric about cost of living, all the crocodile tears about the carbon tax, all the rhetoric in the election about Australian families and they are taking away $400 per primary student and $800 per high school student from Australian families—$15,000 over the school life of an average family with two children. This government have just voted to repeal support for the Australian families who need it most.
We will not be lectured by this government about cost of living. We will not accept their crocodile tears about the pressures on Australian families. We will judge the government by their actions not their words. Their actions are actions which hurt Australian families. Their actions are actions which take money away from Australian families. Here is the member for Kooyong. He is in the chamber. He voted to increase red tape on small business and he is happy about it. 'Member for red tape', explain why now under the Abbott government the Australian small business community will have to fill in paperwork to claim a deduction which they would have gotten automatically under the previous government?
Mr Frydenberg: Madam Speaker, under the standing orders may I ask a question of the shadow Treasurer?
The SPEAKER: Yes, I recognise the member for Kooyong.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (17:59): My question is to the shadow Treasurer. How many additional regulations was his government responsible for over the last 5½ years?
The SPEAKER: Is the member prepared to take the question?
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (17:59): I am delighted to take the question, Madam Speaker. The member pretends! It was a lot less than he pretends, but he is voting to increase regulation.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: You just did! You just voted to increase regulation on Australia's small businesses and you will be held to account for it. You will be held to account for it for the next three years. It is right and proper that democracy acts in the other place. The other place now has the right to vote on this bill, which this government has just enacted in this House.
In this House and the other house there are people looking for a voice. There are people on low- and middle-incomes looking for a voice. In fact, one in three Australian workers say, 'Why don't I get a tax concession when I save for the future? Why don't I get, not a large tax concession, not a huge tax concession, but just some help to save for the future?' I invite honourable members to explain why they think it is fair that somebody who happens to earn under $37,000 gets zero tax support for saving for their retirement. Zero! The government thinks it is fair that somebody with more than $2 million in their superannuation account gets an increased tax concession but somebody who earns less than $37,000 gets none.
We just do not think that is unfair: we fixed it. We fixed it in office by saying to Australia's low- and middle-income earners, 'You deserve a bit of support. If you're going to save for the future, you deserve a bit of help. You deserve a 15 per cent tax concession so that you can save for the future and you don't have to rely on the age pension, because we think that's fair.' That is what our values tell us is right.
Our values tell us that it is right and proper that a shop assistant, a factory worker or somebody who is working away to try and earn $37,000—whether it be full-time or part-time—deserves a bit of help; they deserve a bit of support. The Abbott government—which some people on under $37,000 would have voted for, and they have been betrayed by this government today—says, 'You're on your own. We don't care if you can save for the future. We're going to take away your tax concession. But we can afford to give one to you if you've got more than $2 million in your superannuation account. That's fine. We can afford—' (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.
Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, there are five seconds left!
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (18:02): Here we hear the same refrain from the Australian Labor Party: do not get between the shadow Treasurer and the opportunity to extend the credit card, because if Labor has an opportunity to be out there claiming to be a friend of the Australian family, even if it involves borrowed money, then we know they will take it every single time.
The shadow Treasurer stands up and says, 'We won't be lectured to about the cost pressures on Australian families'. But it is the Australian Labor Party that has left a legacy of over $400 billion of debt. It is the Australian Labor Party that in this very debate is arguing to set increased expenditure of some $13 billion.
We already know that the shadow Treasurer stood up and said, 'Oh look, there were, I concede, a couple of problems with respect to the design and implementation of the mining tax'. But let's look at what these so-called problems that the shadow Treasurer identifies actually are. A projection of $49½ billion worth of revenue, subsequently revised down to being a projection of around $24 billion worth of revenue, with expenditure of some $16 billion tied to it, and what is the actual outcome? The actual outcome of Labor's trumpeted mining tax is, in net terms, $400 million. And yet the Labor Party comes in and the shadow Treasurer says, 'Oh, we won't be lectured to about standing by Australian families,' as if in some way they should wear a badge of pride that they are sticking up for the next generation of Australians.
Let's be clear, Labor Party, about what the Labor Party is intending to do. The Labor Party's approach in this debate, consistent with their approach in government, is to keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing! The Australian Labor Party is perfectly happy to keep borrowing more money. And guess what, Madam Speaker? They will keep dishing it out. It is like the show, Treasure Island. The shadow Treasurer is like the P Diddy of his side. You can see him with one dollar notes, just throwing them up into the air if he wanted to, because he is a man of largess, a man who cares. But the reality is that that is not the right thing to do by Aussie kids. It is not the right thing to say to Aussie kids, 'Here, we'll give a cash splash to parents to make ourselves more popular', but the actual consequence of that is that they are going to be paying off that debt for decades. That is Labor's legacy: decades of debt. And that is the only consequence that will arise.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CIOBO: The other extraordinary thing, as I stand here at the dispatch box, is that opposition members are interjecting, but they want to put up the debt ceiling. Well, der, Labor members; because you are the people who in this current situation are now arguing against a $13 billion reduction in expenditure. We are trying to reduce expenditure by $13 billion. The Labor Party is opposing a reduction in expenditure.
The Labor Party is opposing a reduction in expenditure and they are saying, 'But hang on—why do you want to increase the debt ceiling?' Well, it is because lunatics like the Australian Labor Party want to keep taxing and spending and taxing and spending, and borrowing and spending and borrowing and spending. That is the reason, and it is the exact reason why, as a government, we are determined to make sure that the Labor Party—
Mr Bowen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wish to clarify whether you regard the term that was just used as parliamentary, for the record?
The SPEAKER: I think the term 'lunatic' is probably not parliamentary, so perhaps the member could withdraw.
Mr CIOBO: I withdraw, to assist the House, Madam Speaker.
So, they are a precious lot over there, aren't they? But the reality is that with respect to Labor's approach, it is crystal clear. It is crystal clear that Labor's approach is not to recognise at all the message that was delivered to them from the Australian people, that the Australian people can walk straight through their attempts to buy their way back into office. The Australian people have had enough of Labor's approach, which saw them borrow money, and spend money and increase taxes to spend more money. The Australian public does not want to know about the old approach of the Australian Labor Party. They want a government that is focused on reducing debt, on reducing the deficit and on reducing expenditure in order to get that mountain of debt under control.
So I say to the Australian Labor Party: if you are genuinely serious about reducing Australia's debt, do not vote against this bill.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (18:07): This afternoon we heard something which I think was an illustration of where this government is coming from. This afternoon in question time the Prime Minister, in response to a question about these matters, said, 'It's not all beer and skittles.' Dead right it's not all beer and skittles! It is not all beer and skittles for small businesses in this country. It is not all beer and skittles for families in this country.
Let's make it very clear. At this last election we went to the polls and in my electorate I canvassed the community on the issue of the schoolkids bonus. In fact I can tell you, certainly without debate from my perspective, that the reason I am here is because I campaigned on that very issue in bush communities. Remember, 40 per cent of my constituents are Aboriginal people living in remote communities—the poorest Australians. The average age in the Northern Territory is 30 years. It is the youngest constituency in this country. Aboriginal people have large families. These kids are the most disadvantaged in the nation and they live in communities with the highest cost of living in the nation. They have benefited from the schoolkids bonus more than almost any other Australians would have.
Yet now we have got to tell them that it's not all beer and skittles, that you've just got to cop it, because the Prime Minister went to the last election saying to the Australian people: 'We're going to give you one up the ribs. You'll feel it all right, because we're going to take away the schoolkids bonus. We're going to affect your lives in a way no other government has done and we're going to do it to make sure you feel it.' And today we had confirmation that that is what it was meant to do. It was designed to hurt the community. And he stands up here, proud as punch, and says, 'Well, we had to tell the community it's not all beer and skittles.'
Dead right it's not all beer and skittles—a disgusting episode by a Prime Minister who should have more faith in the Australian community. Not only the Prime Minister; but all of those people on the other side who go into their communities and no doubt tell all the families, the low-income earners, what this is going to do to them. How many of them actually went to the election telling people that they were going to abolish the schoolkids bonus? How many of them? How many of them went to the last election saying they were going to abolish the income support bonus? How many said they were going to abolish the low-income superannuation contribution? Not one of them. That is the truth of it—not one of them. Did they go out knocking on doors saying, 'Oh, by the way, how many kids have you got?'
Mr Briggs: Did you tell them you were going to put a carbon tax in place?
Mr SNOWDON: I support the carbon tax. Let's be very, very clear. When you have knocked on the doors of those people you were doorknocking and you saw them walk out the front door with three or four kids, did you tell them, 'Oh, by the way, the money you're getting for those kids'—$400 here, $600 here, added up to $1,200 per family across the country as the average—'will go'?You know very well, you proud wearers of that great mantle of the Liberal Party, that you went to the Australian community knowing that you were not going to tell them any detail.
Mrs Griggs interjecting—
Mr SNOWDON: You tell me, Member for Solomon, which of your community members did you tell you were going to take money off them? Not one. You are shameful.
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will refer to people by their title.
Mr SNOWDON: You're shameful, you're shameful, you're shameful, and you know you're shameful.
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will resume his seat, because when you get the call again I will require you to address members by their proper title. I give the call back to the member for Lingiari.
Mr SNOWDON: I am so pleased, thank you. But let's be clear: in my community this will have a dramatic impact on the lives of thousands of people. Thousands of families are going to suffer as a direct result of this—and those opposite simply do not care. I know that every Australian, particularly those who are low-income earners, are ruing the day, if they did vote for the Liberal Party, that they voted for them. They now know that they are going to be deliberately hurt by this government. The Prime Minister admitted it today when he said, 'Look, they just have to accept life's not all beer and skittles.'
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (18:12): The constant disregarding of the Australian people's views continues in this place yet again. The reality of the election still has not hit the once great Australian Labor Party. We just saw another member, the member for Lingiari, get up here and continue the great sook that is going on on that side of the chamber—and we have got two more weeks of it in the rest of this year. The reality just has not sunk in yet for those sitting on the other side that there is a government that said to the electorate, 'We will do something,' and then you follow through and you do something. What a shock! You do not say, like the member for Isaacs did, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' and then, three months afterwards, 'Oh, that's what we had to do to get through the election.' You do not say, like the member for Chifley, wandering around with his big red button before the election: 'Ding, ding, ding! There's more NBN. Ding, ding, ding!' The new Minister for Communications will daily take him through every little bit of embarrassment that he will have to live through for that record. I know the member for Blaxland must be very thankful that he has been given that gem of a portfolio to look after now, thanks to the member for Chifley and his efforts in government!
The truth about this debate is we have an Australian Labor Party who refuses to accept the election result—utterly refuses.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: Don't talk to me like I'm an air hostess! This is an Australian Labor Party who absolutely refuses to accept the election result. We said prior to the election that we would—
Ms Brodtmann: Madam Speaker, can you please ask the member to clarify what his statement meant about an air hostess?
Mr BRIGGS: Yes, very clearly—
The SPEAKER: I ask the assistant minister to resume his seat. Member for Canberra, you may rise to ask a question as an intervention, if you wish, or on a point of order.
Ms Brodtmann: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On a point of order, the member made what I regard as disparaging comments about air hostesses. I would like him to clarify what he meant by the comment that he made about calling the member for Isaacs an air hostess.
The SPEAKER: I will interpret your intervention as an intervention, as a question to the member speaking. I call the assistant minister.
Mr BRIGGS: If the member for Canberra wants us to walk through what happened on an aeroplane with the former Attorney-General and his behaviour, I am happy to. That is exactly what I was referring to.
Mr Dreyfus: You were not there!
Mr BRIGGS: The member for Isaacs knows exactly that point.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the assistant minister not to reflect on the member for Isaacs at this time.
Mr BRIGGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will return to the point of this debate, which is the abolition of the absolutely failed and flawed piece of legislation that the current member for Lilley—not 'current' for much longer, we understand—and the current shadow Treasurer supported.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Isaacs!
Mr BRIGGS: The member for Isaacs has not got over what happened in September—we understand that point.
Mr Dreyfus: I was elected to this House!
Mr BRIGGS: And you were elected to this House.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The assistant minister has the call.
Mr BRIGGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Labor Party will not accept that they lost the election, an election when we put very clearly that we would abolish the mining tax—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Isaacs wishes to remain there, he will desist.
Mr BRIGGS: Honestly, the anger issues that you have got! You just need to get through them, Mark—seriously.
Ms Hall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you remind the minister to refer to members by their seat, not by their first name.
The SPEAKER: Indeed. The assistant minister has the call.
Mr BRIGGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The choice is very clear for the Australian Labor Party: accept the Australian people's verdict. We took this to the election. We made it very clear.
Ms Owens interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: That is exactly what I just said. We said that we would abolish this tax. We said that we would abolish the payment because the money did not exist! You told them fibs. The money did not exist. Get rid of the bill. Get rid of it now and stop the shame.
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (18:17): I believe the Australian public are sick and tired of Liberal governments cutting the money out of our education system. When we look around Australia we see example after example of state Liberal governments ripping money out of the heart of our school system, our TAFE system, and our education system as a whole. What is most offensive about this particular piece of legislation is not just that it is yet another Liberal cut to education, but that it is the sly, sneaky and deceitful way it is being done. Let us be very clear about this. This has been slipped in. Cutting the schoolkids bonus from 1.3 million Australian families has been slipped in. It has been slipped in under 'other measures'.
Let us be very clear: the schoolkids bonus has absolutely nothing to do with the MRRT. In fact in the 2012-13 budget some measures were grouped together under the 'spreading the benefits of the boom' package. The measure to introduce the schoolkids bonus, however, was absolutely not. This is just a way for this government to sneak in an education cut in the MRRT legislation.
The schoolkids bonus replaced the existing tax refund, the Education Tax Refund, which refunded the money that Australian parents were spending on school related items. We know that many parents struggled to meet the costs not just of school fees but also school uniforms, books, school excursions and of a whole range of different expenses associated with education. Those opposite are claiming that they were upfront. The member for Solomon said that she told all of her constituents that she would cut the schoolkids bonus—she doorknocked them, she put it in all their brochures. The Australian people want the schoolkids budget cut, according to the member for Solomon. But let us just be very clear about this. What those opposite actually said about education during the campaign was misleading. They misled the Australian people by saying that they were on a unity ticket with the Labor Party when it comes to education funding. I wish that were the case. But if you are on a unity ticket, I tell you one thing, there would be 1.3 million Australian families who were not about to have their funding cut.
We know that this is incredibly important to these Australians. We have heard today from grandparents in Victoria—and what did they say about the schoolkids bonus cut? I think the term was 'unusually cruel' for a government to want to come in here and do this.
Ms Rishworth: Not unusually cruel—usually cruel!
Ms KATE ELLIS: The member for Kingston has a very good point. We wish it was unusual when it comes to this government. We have had just five sitting days and this government is proudly on the fifth sitting day cutting the funding for 1.3 million Australian families, funding which goes towards supporting the costs of their children's education. So, if those opposite want to be proud about that, then I think that they should have a long and hard think about the 'unusually cruel' message from Grandparents Australia. If you do not want to listen to the grandparents, that is one thing—
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
Ms KATE ELLIS: They want their schoolkids bonus cut, do they?
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
Ms KATE ELLIS: Even the member opposite will not admit that they want it. I want to share with you what some other Australians have said about the schoolkids bonus. We have been receiving a lot of feedback about just how important this legislation is.
Isabel, for example, said, 'The schoolkids bonus has helped my family and community go to school, to buy uniforms and schoolbooks as well as many other things which are just vital to an education. The Abbott government is cutting so much more than financial aid, but opportunities and disadvantaged families.'
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
Ms KATE ELLIS: Now the member opposite might like to think that Isabel does not exist, but she does and there are thousands more of them. There are thousands like Simone, who said that she was among many who have used it for books and uniforms, and she just does not know how she will be able to get all of these books for her children next year under this government.
Then there is Karen. Karen makes a very good point about the greater cost to the local community when she says, 'I think most parents who are eligible would have used it on school uniforms, on shoes and stationery. Small business will miss out too. Kids still need items but, let's face it, you have to make sure it's budgeted for and that means being much more frugal with Christmas shopping and groceries and holiday activities over the Christmas break.' She says, 'I would like to know what the total amount was that was budgeted for, because it would have worked as a stimulus to our economy. It would have helped support small business in our economy.'
This is shameful. It is sneaky and it is deceitful. The Liberal government must stop cutting education funding. (Time expired)
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (18:22): In the consideration in detail stage of this bill we are considering one of the worst examples of public policy we have seen in recent times. In the future, no-one will go back to the mining tax and its various iterations and hold it up as a proud example of a functional federal government. Let us just go back and remember. In its first iteration, with Kevin Rudd mark 1, this was a mining tax, the resource superprofits tax—because profits are bad—and it was expected to raise $49.5 billion. Then it was revised to the MRRT, and it was forecast to raise $26½ billion over five years. And now we see that, since it began, the MRRT has raised only $400 million. The former government had all these compensation measures to compensate people for the impact of the mining tax, but the mining tax raised no money. They locked in more than $16.7 billion in spending over the forward estimates, or $18.4 billion of expenditure on a fiscal basis over the current forward estimates.
It is disingenuous of the opposition to come in here and talk about this measure or that measure which is going as a consequence of the abolition of the mining tax. This was one of the central policies in the federal election, and the Labor Party fought it out as well. They had their internet stuff about the schoolkids bonus. We all saw that. People were very aware. But the problem with Labor's approach to spending is that it was simply unsustainable.
We have heard the argument that, no, the schoolkids bonus was not part of the mining tax. The former government were very clear on this. Former Minister Penny Wong, Senator Wong, from South Australia, linked the payment of the schoolkids bonus to the proceeds of the MRRT. She said:
I think it's about making sure we use the benefits of the boom wisely. And I think the Government's approach with the mining tax and making sure the benefits of that flow through to families, particularly low and middle income families through the School Kids Bonus, where people get assistance for kids' education costs—
does that. That was Senator Wong on 891 ABC Adelaide Drive with Michael Smyth on 6 June 2012.
Now, there are arguments for a resource tax. This was done in Bass Strait, and the Hawke government was actually a very good example of how to achieve this. But the Rudd and Gillard governments just completely mismanaged this. They came up with a mining tax which raises no money and linked it to $12 billion to $15 billion of spending, of compensation for a tax which raises no money. It is simply unsustainable.
I want to say something about the impact of this in South Australia. Everyone in South Australia has been anticipating the benefits of the mining boom for a long time. The state government were always spruiking it: with Olympic Dam, we were going to see 20,000 jobs. But having a mining tax does not make investment in mining go ahead. Having a carbon tax does not lead to the conditions that are going to make someone invest and see it go ahead.
The Liberal Party have said that we need to do everything possible to see that Olympic Dam goes ahead. We cannot promise that it will go ahead, but I can tell you—as sure as this—that having a mining tax in place makes sure that it does not go ahead. The Prime Minister has said:
I want to do everything I humanly can to help this expansion to go ahead by not having a carbon tax, not having a mining tax, and trying to ensure that we don't have bloated construction costs because of union militancy through the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission.
It is very simple. (Time expired)
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (18:27): The government is making much of the fact that the mining tax does not work, that it does not collect and will not collect enough money, and that is true: it is not working as it was hoped it would work. It is not collecting the sort of money that it was expected to collect. But, instead of just getting rid of it, why doesn't the government fix it? There are any number of ways in which the mining tax could be enhanced to achieve the sort of revenue that is in the forward estimates, the sort of revenue that this country desperately needs to look after the people who need looking after the most.
At the end of the day, what is the role of government? Yes, it is to keep our country safe, but it is also to make sure that everyone gets a fair go in the community. It is to make sure that the people who rely on the public health system can have the best public health system in the world, that the people who need to rely on the public education system can have the best education in the world, that the people who need to rely on public housing do not have to wait years on a list and that people with a disability get the very best care in the world. That is a primary responsibility of any decent government.
Surely it is the responsibility of this government to pick up the mining tax that it was left by the previous government and fix it—for example, to do away with the outrageous depreciation provisions, to prevent the three mining companies that basically designed the tax from getting away with blue murder. The fact is that companies like BHP, Xstrata and Rio have so much that they can write off that they will pay next to no tax for quite some time to come. Well, let us get rid of those depreciation provisions, make the settings right and allow the tax to collect the sort of money it should be collecting.
What about increasing the rate? The fact is that, if any company in this country is making a genuine superprofit, it should pay its fair share of tax. Maybe consideration should be given to increasing the rate. Consideration should be given to fixing the royalty provisions, which are allowing state governments to do whatever they want with the royalties, knowing that they will be reimbursed by the Commonwealth.
What about expanding it to other resources? What about expanding it to gold or expanding it to uranium instead of having it restricted to a very narrow set of resources? In fact, while we are at it why don't we have a conversation about doing this right and, instead of having a very narrow resource rent tax, having a genuine superprofits tax, because surely any business in this country that makes a genuine superprofit can afford to pay a bit more? In the fiscal year 2012-13 the four banks made almost $30 billion in profits. Four Australian companies made almost $30,000 million in profit. Now they are crying poor; they are saying it is a very poor return on their investment. I reckon that is hogwash. Surely the banks and the big miners like BHP, Xstrata and Rio can afford to pay a bit more, because it is completely unacceptable that we continue to live in a country where people wait three years for a hip operation, go to a substandard school despite the best efforts of the teachers, wait years for public housing and live in states where the government will not even cough up $300 for a wheelchair, while companies like BHP, Rio, Xstrata, the Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, ANZ and NAB are pocketing enormous sums of money. There is a fundamental inequity in this which a decent government would do something about.
Even if we do not have a superprofits tax applying to all companies that operate in the economy, let us at least have the sort of resource superprofits tax that Ken Henry recommended. Ken Henry is one of the leading minds in this country. He made a number of very well-researched, credible recommendations to the previous government. If the previous government was not going to listen to those good recommendations then maybe a decent current or future government will pick up those recommendations and run with them. The federal budget for this financial year has a revenue forecast of $388 billion—that is, $388,000 million—yet we are going to rip money off people on low incomes who want a bit of a hand with accumulating their super and we are going to take money from disadvantaged families who need a bit of help with their school costs.
What is going on here? We talk about a corporate rate cut. We are talking about a better deal for the miners and not getting into the banks when in any number of electorates people need a bit of a hand and this tax is one way of creating the money to give them a hand.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (18:32): We have heard the members for McMahon, Lingiari and Adelaide talk about what they think is going to be taken away from people. I can tell you that the mining tax, combined with its toxic partner the carbon tax, took away something from many North Queenslanders and many Central Queenslanders. It took away something very fundamental to them. It took away their jobs. There have been over 8,000 job losses in the Queensland coal sector, according to the Queensland Resources Council. There were 37 job losses in Mackay announced by Thiess yesterday. There have been dozens of mine closures throughout the Bowen Basin. There has been a domino effect through the mining service sector in Mackay. We have had scores of job losses in our local town and it is hurting a lot of people.
If there is one thing you do not want to take away from someone, it is their job. That is what the last government did with its carbon tax and its mining tax. To fund its out-of-control addiction to spending and waste it found an ATM and the ATM was the mining industry. The mining industry was contributing about $20 billion a year to state and federal coffers back in 2010 but that was not enough. The original estimate, as has been said before, was that the mining tax would collect around $26.5 billion from 2012-13 to 2016-17. What did it actually collect? A few hundred million dollars. The forecast in PEFO was that it was down to $4.4 billion over that same period. I think the figure it has collected right now is $400 million. So it utterly failed. Despite the failure to raise revenue, the impact on the industry was huge.
I note the contribution by the member for Denison, which no doubt is supported by the member for Melbourne. These guys were saying, 'Let's just fix the tax so we get some more money.' You will fix the mining industry. You will fix towns like Mackay that rely on the mining industry. You will fix them good. You will close them and they will become ghost towns because the tax will be even worse.
Mr Bandt: Like Whyalla.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I challenge the member for Melbourne to come to Mackay. I will walk him down Paget to see some of the business owners and workers who are sweating on whether the next job is going to turn up from BHP or Rio. They are sweating on whether they going to get the next contract, because there is no investment at the moment. They are waiting for us to repeal these taxes. They are waiting for the people in the Labor Party to support our measures to repeal these taxes.
If it went down the track that the member from Melbourne wants, there would be no mining industry. They should be honest and tell the people that their ultimate agenda is to close down mining. It is not all the Labor Party's fault in this and the carbon tax, because these guys were niggling them from the sidelines of the last parliament making them do all this crazy stuff. They are very culpable for the outcomes. The outcomes for my community have been absolutely disastrous. The goose laying the golden eggs for the nation has been almost plucked to death through this mining tax. The dark ages of the previous government have well and truly finished. The adults are now back in charge of running the country and we are open for business. I have to say that we are going to axe the carbon tax and the mining tax one way or the other, with or without the opposition's support. After 1 July next year we will be given that chance if they do not support us now.
Mining will come back. It will rebound if it is given half a chance. There will be life in the mining industry and new jobs throughout North Queensland and Central Queensland. But we have to ask ourselves: was this carbon tax actually worth it? The industry told us it was not worth it.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Well, the mining tax wasn't worth it either. The subsequent loss of investments told us that it was not worth it. Families who lost their jobs told us it was not worth it. And, more importantly, the people of Australia told us on election day that it certainly was not worth it. These people should do the right thing and vote with us to get rid of this mining tax, and also vote with us to get rid of the carbon tax.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (18:37): I am really pleased to be able to get the opportunity to speak on this, because of course the Liberal Party gagged the debate on this really important issue. It is disappointing that I have not heard any of those on the other side give any commitment to the principle that the Australian people own the minerals in the ground. They have failed in this debate to ever mention the fact that these minerals are owned by the Australian people and that dividends from these minerals should go back to the Australian people. It is very concerning to see the priorities of this government, the priorities that say, 'Give the money back to the mining companies; give the money back to those who can most afford it and take it from those who can least afford it.'
I was somewhat surprised when the Prime Minister got up in question time, I think it was yesterday, and said he was a good friend of the worker. I could not think of a statement that was more ironic—I took it as irony—because we now see this bill before the House that is abolishing so many things that are important to low-paid workers, and in particular the low-income superannuation contribution.
Who would have thought it would be the Liberal Party that would be putting tax back on? They talk a lot about tax, but what they are doing by abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution is putting a tax back on our lowest paid workers. Many of these workers are in my electorate—in fact there are 25,300 of them in my electorate who are going to have a 15 per cent tax put back on. These people work very hard. Many of them are working as sales assistants, checkout operators and cleaners. They are people who are working hard and they are putting money away for their retirement. But what do the Liberal Party want to do? They want to come and snatch 15 per cent of that back. They want to snatch it back and ensure that low-income workers have less money to retire on, less money to make ends meet when they finally retire.
But it does not stop there. Those opposite are delaying the increase of nine per cent to 12 per cent superannuation. They are delaying an important part of our policy, which was to ensure that people retired on an adequate income. Of course, the Liberal Party have never been a friend of superannuation. They have never liked superannuation. That is why we see—
Ms Rowland: They just thought it was a con!
Ms RISHWORTH: Yes. The member for Warringah, before he was Prime Minister, actually said it was a big con. We have had to drag them along kicking and screaming, but we still see—they are not willing to come out and still say it is a con, but they will give a little sidekick to it every now and again, hurt those who are most vulnerable and ensure the delay to go from nine to 12 per cent means that so many people will miss out.
It is not only low-paid workers that this government is out for; it is also our most vulnerable. These include those on a disability support pension. I have many people in my electorate who are on a disability support pension. We know that when the coalition were last in government they refused to provide bonus payments to those on a disability support pension. They have come along again and, a couple of weeks into government, they have gone straight for those on disability support pensions and other payments by abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution. That has been a really important element that many low-income workers and those who are on things such as the disability support pension payment have relied on, and this mean-spirited government is taking that away.
Then we come to the schoolkids bonus. We know that those on the opposite side have always been against the schoolkids bonus. In fact, I remember the debate in this House when many of those on the other side lined up to say that parents would waste this money: parents would not spend it on their children; they would not spend it on anything sensible; they would probably go and spend it on alcohol or other things. Member after member of the then opposition got up and said that parents would not spend this money properly. They did not have trust in Australian families. What we on this side of the House know is that this money was really, really important to parents to pay for things like uniforms, books, excursions, swimming lessons—a whole range of things. This mean-spirited government once again is going to rip that away from many families. I ask the government to rethink this and to not continue on with this mean-spirited policy.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:42): It is always very interesting to follow the member for Kingston. If anyone was listening to the member for Kingston's contribution, they might have been be confused into thinking that the mining industry actually pays no tax and that these big evil multinational companies are coming in and stealing these mineral resources, which rightly do belong to all people of Australia, out of the ground and not making any contribution to the nation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We know that our mining companies pay substantial royalties to our state governments. Not only that; we know, when you compare the term of the Howard government to the years of the Labor government, those royalties that the state governments have enjoyed have more than doubled. And we also know it is the same with company tax. That is right: people listening to members of the Labor Party may have forgotten that the mining companies actually pay company tax on the profits that they make. And those profits we have seen more than double since the years of the Howard government compared to the last years of the Labor government.
But it is not only the royalties; it is not only the company tax; it is also the payroll of these companies. The payroll of the mining companies in the last year was close to $30 billion. They paid the Australian economy $30 billion worth of wages. Of course, all those wages go in and the people who earn those wages pay income tax. The average full-time wage of the 249,000 people that the mining sector employs is $125,000, which of course creates enormous economic activity throughout the entire economy and especially in our regional areas. The mining sector is also the largest employer of our Indigenous sector. There are more Indigenous people employed in the mining sector than in any other sector throughout the economy.
Our nation is getting enormous benefit from the mining sector, and that is why this tax is such a risk. It is a risk because it makes our tax regime internationally uncompetitive. Australia is not the only nation that has the benefit of coal and iron ore in the ground. Of all the world's coal resources, Australia holds but seven per cent; 93 per cent of the world's coal resources are held outside Australia. If we are going to compete for the capital investment from the mining sector we must have an internationally competitive tax regime. That is something that, unfortunately, the Labor Party fails to understand. The prosperity and wealth the we enjoy from the mining sector is at risk from this ill-designed tax.
The other concern is all the promises that the previous Labor government made—and they now continue to make in opposition. Basically they want to become the Santa Claus party of giving things away. It is very easy to promise things—to promise the schoolkids bonus, to promise things to small business, to promise things to all different sectors of our economy—but you have to be able to work out how you are going to pay for it. That is something that the opposition seems completely oblivious to.
I would like members of the opposition when they go out to their schools in their coming presentations to walk into those schools and apologise—to stand up, look those little kids in the eye and apologise to them and say: 'Because of our incompetence over the last six years, running the five largest budget deficits in our nation's history, you kids are going to have to pay the interest on our debt. Somehow you have to pay it back and every single year the interest repayments alone will be $10 billion.' In each electorate around the nation, that is $200 million— (Time expired)
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (18:48): It is interesting to hear the members opposite concentrate almost entirely on the needs of miners in the speeches that they have made today. There are, of course, a number of other measures in this bill, which will dramatically impact on small businesses around the country and in my electorate. I want to address those, because we are losing some very important measures tonight with this vote.
The first one is the loss carry-back introduced by Labor as at the 2012-13 year. It was a measure requested under the Henry review and strongly supported by business advocates around the country—by accountants, by small business associations and small businesses themselves.
Mr Ciobo: It was our policy.
Ms OWENS: When you use the words 'loss carry-back' you assume it is about a business that has a bad year and makes a loss and is able to carry that back. That is part of it, but it is also a measure that assists businesses whose economic cycle is not actually a 12-month cycle. It is one of my great interests that the whole field of accounting was actually created by a monk in the agrarian age, when the annual cycle was the norm. For a lot of businesses it is the norm, but for other businesses that work in highly creative fields that have long development lead times, because they are developing new products or film or intellectual property, the economic cycle is not one year and the losses in one year can be substantial and the income can flow in a very lumpy way in one year or another.
The parliamentary secretary opposite said it was a Liberal Party policy. Well, you are about to abolish it, Parliamentary Secretary. If you think it is so great, perhaps you should consider keeping it because, for businesses whose economic cycle is not over a 12-month period, it is an incredibly important measure. As we see innovation, new technology and people working round the world and combining ideas and working in modern forms with intellectual property, it will become increasingly important and not less so.
The other two measures involve accelerated depreciation. We heard the Minister for Small Business today say they are not very sensible measures because a business has to spend the money now and wait till the end of the year to get the tax advantage. I suggest he goes and finds out what depreciation actually is, because standard depreciation is you spend now and you wait several years to get it back in a bit-by-bit approach at the end of each year. This actually improves that for small business. It improves the way it was before and it is better than what the government is about to impose on small business again. It allows small business to claim at the end of the financial year an accelerated depreciation up to $6,500 per asset that costs less than $6,500. This is a substantial benefit to small businesses.
I have been in small business myself and I know that one of the things that you think about very seriously when you purchase something is how long the depreciation schedule will last. It is incredibly important for small businesses who have cash flow problems to reduce the period of time between when they spend the money and when they get the tax advantage. That is the purpose of the instant tax write-off.
The other one, of course, is the legislation which provides small businesses a claim of up to $5,000 as an immediate deduction for motor vehicles, new or used, that cost $6,500 or more. I have a string of companies that sell motor vehicles in my electorate. I do not have a Moorooka Magic Mile of motors, but I do have something that looks very much like that.
Mr Ripoll: Do you know about the Moorooka Magic Mile?
Ms OWENS: Of course I know about the Magic Mile; everyone knows about the Magic Mile. I would love to have a Magic Mile. I've got a magic half-mile in Parramatta.
When we introduced the instant write-off during the global financial crisis, the effect that it had on that strip of motor vehicle sellers was extraordinary. The comments that they made about it and the effect that it had were amazing. In fact, when we introduced both of these write-offs in 2012-13, the businesses that sell to businesses—the businesses that sell carpet, the cabinet-makers who make shelving and counters, people who sell refrigeration, people who sell computers, people who sell tools, and people who sell motor vehicles—used it as a way to promote their businesses to other businesses. It became quite a focus within the small business sector.
If the government thinks that they made it clear before the election that they were going to remove these tax concessions, they are wrong. The slogan was 'axe the tax', not 'axe the tax concessions'. They left off the last word. The commitment to axe the tax concessions was very silent. These are bad changes and it is a bad bill.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (18:53): The debate from the Labor Party in relation to the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 has been predictable. We have seen Labor rail against the various measures that are contained within this bill. And I get it. I get that the Labor Party genuinely hold the view that the abolition of the various incentives within the bill is, for some, a regressive step. I get that. But the reality is that the coalition's approach stands in stark contrast to Labor's approach. We do not do these things because we are cruel people—as we heard in some of the more outlandish claims from members of the Labor Party. We do not do these things because we like to inflict pain on the Australian community—again as we heard put forward in some outlandish comments by the Australian Labor Party. We make these hard decisions because they are necessary decisions.
Members of the Australian Labor Party and the Greens stand up and rail against the Liberal Party and National Party cuts and say, 'How can you do this?' I will explain the reason. And I will explain the reason in the chamber in exactly the same way as I have explained it in the community. And do you know what, Madam Speaker? The general community gets it. The general community understands why we have to have cuts. The only people who do not get it are the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens. And do you know the reason they do not get it, Madam Speaker? It is not because they are thick—some might say that, but it is not because they are thick. The reason they do not get it is because they do not want to get it. The Labor Party and the Greens want to go down a populist path. They want to be able to stand in the chamber and say, 'We fought for the schoolkids bonus.' They want to be able to stand in the chamber and say, 'We fought for accelerated depreciation.' They want to be able to stand in the chamber and say, 'We fought for the tax loss carry-back.' That is the reason they do it. But what they always neglect to say is that none of these measures are affordable. They always neglect to say that, because they pursued these policies over the last six years, Australia went from net assets to being $400 billion in debt. They always neglect to say that, because they pursued these policies, the Australian people now have seen the five biggest budget deficits in our nation's history. And do you know what, Madam Speaker? The Australian public get it. They understand that this kind of unsustainable spending is not in our national interest. They understand that the inevitable end destination of Labor's spending, borrowing and taxing is to end up like states like Greece.
The only thing that separates where we are today and a nation like Greece is time. Make no mistake: if the Australian Labor Party still occupied the treasury bench, together with their mates in the Greens, they would still be spending, they would still be taxing, they would still be borrowing, and they would do it term after term, holding themselves out as the great defenders of the Australian workers. But they are not that.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being 6.57 pm, in accordance with the resolution passed earlier the 60-minute period for consideration in detail has passed. The question before the House is that the bill be agreed to.
The House divided. [19:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)
Third Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (19:08): By leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
National Security
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (19:09): by leave—A short time ago President Yudhoyono made a statement in Jakarta. I have to say that I was encouraged by the President's remarks about the strength of the relationship between Australia and Indonesia, although obviously there are very serious issues which do need to be worked through in the near future between us.
Again, I want to express here in this chamber my deep and sincere regret about the embarrassment to the president and to Indonesia that has been caused by recent media reporting. The President indicated that he would shortly be writing to me. I would like to reassure the House that I will be responding to the President's letter swiftly, fully and courteously. As always, I am absolutely committed to building the closest possible relationship with Indonesia because that is overwhelmingly in the interests of both our countries.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (19:10): by leave—We agree with the Prime Minister of Australia there is not a more important relationship than with Indonesia. As I said yesterday in this place, the opposition believes that our relationship with Indonesia can recover and it can thrive and prosper. What the government and the opposition must continue to do is to unite in our commitment to improving and repairing this relationship in a timely way.
This parliament, all of us, respects Indonesia as a successful democracy. A strong and constructive relationship is fundamental to our national interest. It is particularly fundamental to the work that we do to help stop people-smuggling, to improve regional security and the strong trade and business interests between our two countries. That is why our position continues to be one of support for the government. The days ahead remain of the utmost importance and these matters should continue to be resolved.
We do not underestimate the seriousness of this matter or the sense of offence that our Indonesian friends are feeling. We will support the government in these efforts. As I said yesterday in this place, it is impossible to imagine our futures without a positive and constructive friendship and dialogue between our governments. That is why, again, I reiterate on behalf of Labor: we want the government to be successful in rebuilding the relationship and trust with Indonesia. We will support the government in its efforts. This is indeed a 'team Australia' moment. This is something that is happening to both Indonesia and Australia. We need to walk this road together. Other nations have resolved these similar issues. We can too.
BILLS
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013
Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time
to which the following amendment to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the Bill a second reading:
(1) because it would be ill advised to continue without consideration of the broader policy issues set out in paragraph 2, related to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills; and
(2) because of:
(a) the impact of the abolition of the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation on ongoing transparency and investment in climate change;
(b) Government plans for emissions reduction and further development of renewable energy; and
(c) the international position of Australia in relation to climate change."
The SPEAKER (19:13): The original question was that these bills be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Port Adelaide has moved as an amendment to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form: that the amendment be agreed to. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (19:13): I rise today to take a stand on behalf of the people of Darwin and Palmerston and put on the record my support for the Abbott government's bill to reduce Territory bills. The Abbott government is committed to scrapping the carbon tax and we will do everything in our power to see this through. Those on the opposition benches know September's federal election was a mandate to scrap the carbon tax, to reduce costs for business and households, boost jobs and manufacturing, and restore Australia's international competitiveness.
Once the tax has been axed, Territorians can expect a reduction of average costs of living across all households of around $550 during the 2014-15 financial year, according to Treasury modelling.
This government takes its election commitments seriously, and we will follow through with what we said—that is, that we will axe the tax. We have already delivered on our promise to make the first item of legislative business in the new parliament the carbon tax repeal bills, and the Australian people know they can trust us at our word and we do what we say.
Last month, the coalition government asked for public consultation on the carbon tax repeal bills to keep in line with our election commitment. Unlike Labor, the coalition engaged in proper consultation, as does any good government, to better understand whether the draft legislation should be further refined before being introduced into the parliament. We received hundreds of submissions.
One of those worth particular mention is a joint submission from the Minerals Council of Australia in the Northern Territory division. The first paragraph of this submission shows full support for the coalition's plan.
It states:
The repeal of the Clean Energy Act is an important first step in the development of a better, more sustainable climate change policy for Australia. The Australian minerals industry welcomes The Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill.
It goes on:
The Clean Energy Act, referred to as the “carbon tax”, puts a deadweight on the Australian economy. It placed a burden of about $1.2 billion on the minerals sector alone last year, an impost on a scale faced by none of Australia’s minerals export competitors.
… … …
This burden comes for no material environmental dividend.
Repeal of the Clean Energy Act is necessary because it is a poorly designed response to the policy challenge. The minerals industry looks forward to engaging in the process of designing the Direct Action scheme to provide for a more efficient and effective approach.
If the Territory's minerals industry is suffering under Labor's carbon tax then that has a flow-on effect in terms of economic growth, jobs and prosperity.
Conoco Phillips, operators of Darwin's LNG plant, also lodged a submission. Jack Griffin, Conoco Phillips Vice President of Legal and Corporate Affairs says:
ConocoPhillips recognises and preferences the Government's clear intention to repeal legislation ahead of the effective date June 30th, 2014. However, where this is not possible ... ConocoPhillips supports the Government's position on retrospective repeal'.
The two Territory Labor federal members, the member for Lingiari and Senator Nova Peris, need to listen to these organisations and consider the impact on the economy and on jobs of the carbon tax and support the government's repeal legislation. If they really do want to stand up for the Territory, then they should join us and axe the tax. Territorians are paying for Labor's tax failures and they need their parliamentary representatives to stand up and say enough is enough.
Even before implementation of the carbon tax in 2012, the Minerals Council warned:
… at least 1500 Northern Territory businesses face a new 6.2 cents per litre tax on fuel under the Gillard Government's carbon tax.
Additionally they said:
… analysis of national taxation statistics shows that the proposed carbon tax on fuel will impose an immediate direct cost on more than 60,000 individual businesses nationwide , not just 400-500 'big polluters' as claimed by the Government.
In the Territory, we have experienced price hikes of 10 per cent to our power bills since the tax was introduced. Small business have been hit even harder than domestic users, because they pay a higher tariff than households. Local government has also been hit hard. The City of Darwin pointed the finger fair and square at the carbon tax when announcing a hike in rates and rubbish collection costs. In the 2012-13 budget, the City of Darwin increased rates by 4.5 per cent, and garbage and recycling collection fees increased by a massive 17 per cent. Overall an average household paid 6.3 per cent more in council fees than the year before all because of the carbon tax.
A local air-conditioning company servicing Darwin and Palmerston has told my office the cost of replacing the refrigerant gas in a domestic air conditioner has increased from about $25 a kilo to about $100 a kilo since the carbon tax kicked in. That is an increase that business would have never seen coming and one the average consumer has to swallow.
NT Ice in Berrimah is a major supplier of frozen water in the Territory. Its operator, Michael Goonan, tried to absorb the price increases that resulted from the hike in electricity prices caused by the carbon tax. He even spent $50,000 installing a 24-kilowatt solar system at his plant. His applications for assisted government funding were knocked back by the same Labor government that introduced the carbon tax to encourage alternative energies.
Then there is the case of the Territory auto air-conditioning company who have also taken a carbon tax hit. In one case Top North Auto Air-conditioning wrote to its clients about an impending price increase. The letter said:
As one of your suppliers in air-conditioning system repair and re-gassing I must write to you today to advise of imminent refrigeration gas price increases. As part of the Gillard Government Carbon tax Scheme refrigerants will attract a new tax.
This scheme is to be introduced on July 1st 2012 and will see un-paralleled price rises, with increases yearly as the carbon tax price ratchets up annually.
R134a refrigerant for air conditioning systems in vehicles is expected to increase approximately 300% initially. R404 refrigerant for fridges/freezers et cetera is expected to rise approximately 400-500%. These massive input price increases cannot be absorbed by Top North Auto Air and will have to be passed on to consumers.
Territorians were hit again.
When the carbon tax first began in July 2012, the then shadow environment minister, now Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, visited the electorate of Solomon, where he saw firsthand how local business were being affected and how they were losing money right from the word go. During his visit, Minister Hunt met with local business owner Mick Burns. Mick is a well-known businessman who, among other interests, has a crocodile-farming business. At the time, Mick had around 60,000 to 70,000 crocodiles to feed and care for. He was quoted as saying: 'Given the tyranny of distance, we have to freight the majority of our feed up. Our feed goes up to about 65 tonnes a week for crocodiles. My food bill out there is close to $3 million a year. When you get a six to seven per cent price increase, it's a pretty hefty cost. I've got long-term overseas contracts that I can't increase. I can't pass on that cost. I've got to wear that cost.'
Mick was unable to pass any of those immediate costs on, as he had fixed contracts which did not allow for a carbon tax price hike during the middle of the year. This was a huge hit to Mick's hip-pocket, a cost that he will never be able to recover. Crocodiles are big business in the Territory and the carbon tax has had an indirect but very real flow-on effect to producers like Mick Burns, who help support the livelihoods of hundreds of people in the Top End.
All this pain for nothing. The carbon tax has not actually done what it promised to do—that is, clean up our environment and reduce CO2emissions. Instead of cleaning up the environment, the carbon tax is instead cleaning out the wallets of Territorian families. That is not good enough. I will not stand by and let this happen. I know my colleague and friend Senator Scullion will be voting to get rid of the tax. We want to know whether the member for Lingiari and Senator Peris will vote to axe the tax.
Mr Snowdon: The answer is no.
Mrs GRIGGS: No. The member for Lingiari is going to be letting Territorians down. Domestic emissions under the carbon tax continue to rise. It has completely failed to do the job it set out to do. The previous government's own modelling, which it submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, shows that under the carbon tax our emissions would increase from around 560 million tonnes in 2010 to 637 million tonnes in 2020. It is estimated that the carbon tax will accrue at least $10 billion over two years, with domestic emissions not falling but rising. By any measure, this is yet another bungled policy from Labor that was orchestrated by the Greens over there on the crossbenches. It was swallowed up in desperation by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and hung around the neck of all Australians, just to keep Labor in power.
Meanwhile, countries around the world are reducing their emissions through policies that provide direct incentives to adopt new technologies that reduce emissions or improve energy efficiency. The coalition government will focus on measures that will actually cut emissions, like reafforestation, cleaning up power stations, cleaning up waste landfill and waste coalmine gas.
The Labor Party would rather burden families and businesses with an economy-wide tax that fails to reduce emissions and sends industry offshore. Around the world, other countries are taking direct-approach initiatives, including direct abatement purchasing; renewable energy targets; energy efficiency measures; appliance, building and vehicle fuel efficiency standards; and measures in the agriculture, forestry and land sectors. It seems the Labor Party thought they knew best and went directly against the grain and against the advice of industry experts and world leaders. But this is what we are beginning to expect from those on the opposition benches—radical ideas with no community or industry consultation.
I am here to stand against that, to stand up and say no to a tax that is fleecing Territorians of their hard-earned money. The member for Lingiari has said that he will not be supporting the removal of the tax. I hope that Senator Peris, who said that she will be standing up for Territorians, will vote with us to axe the tax. Territorians have said to me that they do not want this tax. Senator Peris, stand with me and vote for real change to tackle climate change, with proven measures and real results. Do not stand in the way of a fair go for Territory businesses. Do not stand in the way of jobs like the member for Lingiari is. Do not stand in the way of economic growth. Most of all, do not stand in the way of what Territorians want. They want us to axe the tax so get on board, member for Lingiari.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (19:27): This is a classic moment in the history of Australia. It illustrates the divide between the two parties who make up this great Westminster tradition. Australia is being asked to make a decision between advice being given by the devil on one shoulder and the advice of the angel on the other. The devil on one shoulder is saying loudly: 'Think of yourself. Every Australian should think of yourself. You don't have to worry about the collective. You don't have to worry about your children. You definitely don't have to worry about your grandchildren or the rest of the region'—even though we are surrounded by islands that are low-lying. The angel on other shoulder is saying to Australians: 'You should think of others. You must think of others. Not only should you think of others because it is the moral thing to do and the right thing to do; it makes economic sense to think of others. It makes sense because it will be cheaper to act now rather than to act later.' This is the classic moral divide.
Former Prime Minister Rudd did get it right: this is the greatest moral challenge of our time, where we are asking people either to be selfish, think of their wallets and themselves, or to think of the collective, their nation and the world. We will grapple with those two voices. The devil on one shoulder is saying, 'Think of yourself'—a voice taken up by those opposite and run with ever since 2 December 2009, when the then backbencher, the member for Warringah, by one vote became the Leader of the Opposition on an anti climate change action ticket. That was the classic moment when the future of Australia turned. Then, I think it was the very next day, we had the Senate vote on the ETS and we saw two brave Liberal senators cross the floor against the will of Tony Abbott. If the Greens had voted with Labor on that day we would have had an ETS on 3 December 2009.
Debate interrupted.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) ( 17 : 30 ): Order! It being 7.30 pm I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Moore-Wilton, Mr Max
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (19:30): Strange things happen during election campaigns. Misrepresentation and distortion are never far away. However, I must say I was shocked during the recent election campaign by the depth of distortion and misrepresentation by the Chairman of the Sydney Airport Corporation Max Moore-Wilton in his crusade against the construction of a second airport in Sydney.
Mr Moore-Wilton is perfectly entitled to oppose a second Sydney airport. But as the head of a company that has a monopoly over the existing airport, any fair analysis would conclude that he has an enormous conflict of interest. As many people would know, until 20 December 2002 Mr Moore-Wilton was the nation's top bureaucrat—Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Months before, on 28 June 2002, the Howard government finalised the sale of the lease of the Sydney Airport to Southern Cross Airports Corporation Pty Ltd for $4.2 billion.
The airport had been offered for sale by tender with conditions which were factored into the sale price. They included: an 11 pm to 6 am curfew; a limit of 80 aircraft movements per hour; and guaranteed access to the airport for regional airlines. There was a fourth condition. If it was ever decided to build a second airport in Sydney the successful tenderer for the existing airport would have first right of refusal for its construction and operation for 30 years. I understand the condition was initially proposed to last 20 years but was increased to 30 years at the request of the buyer.
One wonders what considerations were behind that and what was the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's knowledge of those considerations? If Mr Moore-Wilton was sincere in his stated view that a second Sydney airport would not be economically viable until after 2032, he would be prepared to give up that condition. History will judge Mr Moore-Wilton's sincerity on whether he does so.
Mr Moore-Wilton understood the conditions on the sale of the lease when he resigned from the Public Service and took the position as Chief Executive of the Sydney Airport Corporation just a few months after the sale. Mr Moore-Wilton now wants these conditions scrapped. Of course, that would deliver a windfall gain for the Sydney Airport Corporation. At the recent CAPA aviation industry conference in August, I spoke and reiterated Labor's support for a second Sydney airport, saying the potential sites were at Badgery's Creek and Wilton. Mr Moore-Wilton also spoke, attacking the regulations on the airport's operation and asserting that I had intervened to allow breaches of the curfew so aircraft carrying politicians could land late at night. There were no breaches; there were no planes; there were no MPs on these fictitious planes.
Mr Moore-Wilton has also attacked me, as well as Joe Hockey and Scott Morrison, who also support a second Sydney airport, claiming we had a conflict of interest because we represented communities around Sydney Airport. And he has been critical of the lack of infrastructure spending around the airport when his corporation is privately run, generates significant revenue, remunerates its board handsomely, yet has not paid a single dollar in tax since the airport was privatised.
Mr Moore-Wilton also sits on the board of Infrastructure New South Wales, which is meant to provide independent advice to government. Infrastructure New South Wales has not recommended support for a second Sydney airport, although it would drive productivity and growth for Sydney, New South Wales and the nation. So Mr Moore-Wilton expects taxpayers to fund infrastructure for his privately leased airport but is determined to privatise the profits of this monopoly.
When it comes to the need for a second Sydney airport, Mr Moore-Wilton is out of step with mainstream thought. Just about everyone in the aviation sector supports a second Sydney airport, including the heads of Qantas, Virgin and other airlines; the Business Council of Australia; the Sydney Business Chamber; and the Labor Council of New South Wales. For Mr Moore-Wilton, whose company has a direct financial interest in preserving its monopoly, to be attacking members of parliament for alleged conflict of interest tests the limits of intellectual credibility.
Let me put it this way: the man who was the senior public servant when the government sold the lease becomes the CEO of the company that buys the lease and begins arguing for the removal of the regulatory measures his company agreed to as part of the sale. This same man also wants the taxpayer to fund infrastructure around the airport despite the fact that his company pays no tax. This same man argues against there being a competitor for his company's monopoly.
Finally, he sits on the board of Infrastructure New South Wales, which does not argue in favour of this vital infrastructure project. And he accuses me and Joe Hockey and Scott Morrison of a conflict of interest. Give me a break!
Wannon Electorate: Cancer Services
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (19:35): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you once again on your appointment to the illustrious position that you now hold. I rise tonight to update the House on a very important issue for my electorate. It is an issue which revolves around providing much-needed cancer services to South-West Victoria. As many in this House would have heard me previously speak about, a local community group called Peter's Project started a campaign three years ago to bring cancer services to South-West Victoria. It has been at its heart a community campaign, started by the community, hoping to achieve for the community.
Initially, the Baillieu state government came on board by committing $5 million to the project. This was then added to at a subsequent election when they committed a further $10 million to the campaign. We have seen in the meantime, also, an Abbott-led government commit $10 million to this cause.
I was privileged to have the Hon. Peter Dutton, the shadow minister for health, come down during the election campaign and announce that if the coalition won the election it would commit $10 million to this worthy cause. Having won the election, I have been very pleased to see the minister in his first answer to a question in this House as the minister once again confirm that the Abbott government will honour that commitment of $10 million and provide it to Peter's Project so that the integrated cancer care centre can be built in Warrnambool to service south-west Victoria and the south-east of South Australia.
This is a significant development for our local communities in Wannon. It means that the tyranny of distance, when you are diagnosed with cancer, of having to go to Ballarat, having to go to Geelong, having to go to Melbourne, will become a thing of the past. We are talking about a turnaround in some cases of six or seven hours for people to be able to access these services currently. It means that people have to stay away from their families when they have been diagnosed with the most insidious of diseases. This is something which our community has fought for and this is something which I am determined and the Abbott government are determined to see realised.
The most impressive thing about this issue is how the community has fought for this service and how it has been prepared to dig into its own pocket. The community has said that it will raise $5 million to add to the $10 million that the Abbott government is putting towards this cause and the $15 million that the state government is putting towards it. For a community of this size to raise $5 million shows the generosity of the community but also shows its willingness to dig deep and to contribute as well. We are seeing the most remarkable types of fundraising. As I said before, we are seeing young girls who are turning eight saying to their classmates when they have a birthday, 'Please don't bring me a present; give to Peter's Project to help the community fundraising effort.' We are seeing local cricket matches and local footy matches. We are seeing at funerals where people have died from cancer that people are being asked, 'Please don't give flowers; just give to this worthy cause.' Over $3 million in the last four months has already been raised by the community for this cause, with the target $5 million. I have no doubt that the community will reach that $5 million target and I have no doubt that it will be a very proud south-west community the day that this integrated cancer care centre is built.
Wright, Superintendent Mark
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (19:40): On 25 September, Blacktown said thanks and farewell to someone who has made a real difference to the quality of life in our city. After serving seven years in the Blacktown Local Area Command, five as area commander, Superintendent Mark Wright saw out his last day of official duty in our city. Tonight, I seek to share his achievements with the Australian parliament and ensure that in some small measure we can recognise his duty and care for the city of Blacktown.
Since joining the Police Force in 1981, Superintendent Mark Wright has amassed an impressive CV. It did not take him long to establish a penchant for, and obvious skill in, covert policing. In receiving his commission in 1999, Mark Wright was promoted to the rank of detective inspector at the State Surveillance Branch, during which he conducted an international review of covert physical surveillance, seeing him work with agencies such as the FBI, the Royal Canadian Mounties and the London Metropolitan Police. In January 2003, the then detective superintendent became chief of staff to the Deputy Commissioner of Specialist Operations. In 2005 Superintendent Wright became the local area commander at Quakers Hill and three years later commander at Blacktown.
As if policing at an extremely high level were not demanding enough, Mark Wright served the community at large in a long, long list of noble ways. In the process he demonstrated he was a person of profound substance: a White Ribbon Ambassador in the battle against domestic violence against women; awarded a humanitarian award by the Refugee Council of Australia; and named a Rotary Fellow in appreciation of tangible and significant assistance in improving understanding and relations between peoples of the world.
What I especially valued about Superintendent Wright was his lateral approach to policing. While conscious of the expectation to maintain order in our city, he sought to look closer at the issues that might be affecting the calm of community life. For instance, in our major local shopping centre we experienced a growing incidence of unrest between groups of young people, where fights and antisocial behaviour were becoming a regular problem and causing anxiety in local residents. The automatic response might have been to simply increase police presence and shift the issue to another part of the city. Superintendent Wright did something different. He became a founder and chair of COM-4-UNITY, which is short for connecting our minds for unity. He brought together NGOs such as the terrific Marist Youth Care and Blacktown Police, who then set about talking with local youth, finding positive outlets for their energies and guiding them in their own personal development. The program was such a success I was delighted to see it awarded with federal funding in August to help expand its reach and continue its work. And, at a wider level, the breadth of Superintendent Wright's approach sat neatly within a policing method and program that saw annual average decreases in most crime statistics. Having grown up in Blacktown, I can confidently say to this chamber that this is something that our community values enormously and it is something that Superintendent Wright can be properly proud of.
Not content with limiting his efforts within his work life, Superintendent Wright would also volunteer time for local community groups. For instance, he became vice-chair of Syd-West Multicultural Services, where he continued to learn and work with the diverse range of communities that have made their home in our region. Obviously he is a man who cares for others and finds ways to bring them together for the betterment of others, so he is a big loss to the city and the electorate of Chifley. It is a fact of life that good people, talented people, dedicated people, do get sought out for or naturally move on to new challenges. His move to the role of Commander, Management and Leadership Development, Education and Training is a measure of the trust his superiors have in his ability to make the New South Wales Police Force an even sharper organisation. Superintendent Wright, on behalf of the people of Chifley we thank you for your service and wish you and your family all the best for the future and your continued dedication to the people of New South Wales.
Burma
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (19:44): I would like to speak tonight on the subject of Burma, a nation in South-East Asia. I would like to begin by just applauding the federal government for its decision to revert to the name of 'Burma' rather than 'Myanmar' in the case of our relations with that country.
I say that because Myanmar is the name that was selected by the military regime that still maintains power in that country. Many people believe in some sort of romantic delusional state which suggests that everything is great now in that country. But the reality is that the oppression of the ethnic minorities in that country remains and it continues to this day.
We should be aware that 70 per cent of the population of the nation of Burma are actually from the ethnic minorities, so the Burmans themselves are not a majority in comparison to the non-Burmese. The ethnic nationalities are: Karen, Shan, Arakanese, Chin, Kachin, Mon, Lahu and Palaung. They are, as I said, still under oppressive terms and they are not being treated fairly. In fact, the reality is that within the parliament, the assemblies of Burma, it is the case to this day that in the People's Assembly 110 of the 410 seats remain reserved for military officers. It is funny—well, it would be funny if you could joke about such things—that they call it the 'People's Assembly' and yet the constitution imposes military officers just being placed into that assembly without being elected.
Similarly, in the National Assembly, of the 224 seats there, 56 of those seats, again, go to military officers. It really does say something about the legitimacy of that government and the legitimacy of the reform program that is allegedly going on. There is a willingness in some areas internationally to just neglect what is very much a part of the legislative process there—an imposition of uniformed army officers onto the mechanism of government.
So I do cast doubt on the progress that has taken place in the nation of Burma. I referred before to the name of that country, Burma. When you speak to representatives of the ethnic nationalities, the Karens and the Chins, of which there are very many in my electorate, they talk about how they find the name Burma acceptable but acceptable up until the time when there can be a genuine agreement from all the occupants within that nation to come up with a name that properly reflects the ethnic nationalities, the ethnic diversity, of that country. So, whilst I do appreciate that the federal government has re-embraced the name of Burma—as much as can be done—over Myanmar, I do look forward to the day when there will actually be a consensus within the nation itself on a name that properly represents all the people of that country.
It is also important that with Aung San Suu Kyi, the head of the National League for Democracy in Burma, visiting Australia next month we do talk a little bit and we think a little bit about these issues.
I am also very pleased that there are a number of projects where development aid will be used to support refugees on the Burma-Thailand border. Back in 2011, I was fortunate enough to visit the border region and visited a refugee camp to see the conditions.
There are many people in those camps who will look forward to the day when their homeland can be safe again and where the persecution will have stopped. Until that is possible and until repatriation to a good and a fair country can be achieved, then it is good that we are fulfilling our obligations and looking after the genuine refugees who are found in those camps.
Once again, it is great that we have reverted to the term 'Burma' and I hope for a better future for that country.
Australian Capital Territory Multicultural Organisations
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (19:49): I want to take this opportunity tonight to talk about some of the wonderful multicultural community organisations based in my electorate. In Canberra, as in most electorates, I am sure, there are countless community organisations made up of individuals who give their time, often on a voluntary basis, to enhance our city. I want to talk about a few of those.
The ACT Jewish Community has been operating here in Canberra for over 60 years. As well as running the National Jewish Memorial Centre, which is just a short stroll down Canberra Avenue from Parliament House and well worth a visit, the ACT Jewish Community provides adult education, Hebrew school, youth and social activities, and welfare to Canberra's Jewish community.
The Australian Chinese Culture Exchange and Promotion Association cultivates and promotes understanding and goodwill among Chinese and Australians. Since its establishment in 2001, it has participated in all kinds of festival activities in Canberra, presenting dancing, singing and instrumental music performances.
The Australian Karen Organisation was first formed in 1996 to bring to the attention of the world community the plight of the thousands of Karen refugees that were being driven out of their homes to the Burma-Thai border. Since then, its role has expanded to bring the Karen culture to Australia.
The Bangladeshi Seniors Club do wonderful work with older members of the Bangladeshi community in Canberra. We know that it is so important for people to be connected with their home culture and their home language as they age. People will often revert entirely to their mother tongue in their old age, so organisations such as the Bangladeshi Seniors Club are vital for healthy, happy ageing in a multicultural society like Australia.
The Bengali Cultural Association is a dynamic, not-for-profit organisation serving the Bengali and Indian community in and around Canberra. Its presence for more than a decade has seen it regularly organising events of great significance to Bengalis and Indians, such as Durga Puja, Saraswati Puja, cultural programs and Rabindra Jayanti.
The Bluestar Intercultural Centre was established by a group of young Australian Muslims in 2009 as a platform for bringing people together. Founders of Bluestar saw the need for the Muslim community in Canberra to do more to increase awareness of the community, its religion and culture.
The Burrunju Aboriginal Corporation was established to provide local Indigenous people in the Canberra region with an opportunity to realise their dream of self-determination through the creation of their artworks and music.
The Canberra Islamic Centre's primary aim is to build and maintain a cohesive religious, social, cultural and educational institution that serves the needs of the Muslims of the ACT and region. The centre serves as the focal point for all Muslims in the south of Canberra, providing a place for prayers, education and imam guidance, as well as for festivals and events for the whole community, including a fabulous monthly food bazaar.
The Canberra Swiss Club provides Swiss Canberrans, and those with an interest in all things Swiss, with an entree to Swiss culture. It organises picnics, fondue nights, cooking courses, lake cruises and more.
The Italian Language School provides Italian classes to children aged up to 15, continuing a tradition of Italian community classes which has been ongoing in Canberra since 1969.
The Spanish Speakers Association brings together the many Spanish speakers from across the globe who live here in the Canberra region.
These are a diverse group of organisations who work hard to make Canberra a better, more inclusive place. These organisations have one thing in common: they were successful applicants for funding under the Building Multicultural Communities Program. However, since the change in government, they do not know if they will receive their money. Building Multicultural Communities grants were awarded by the Labor government under proper procedures and were fully funded in the 2013-14 budget. All successful recipients were notified of their successful application for funding and were expecting that funding to be released in September. But all they have heard from the Abbott government since its election is radio silence.
We all know that community organisations like these run on the smell of an oily rag and usually rely on donations. The significance of these grants for them should not be understated. I ask those opposite: was the Abbott government elected on a policy of cutting funding to community organisations? No, I do not think so, so don't do it. Organisations like the ones I have mentioned empower communities to embrace the benefits of multiculturalism and maintain cohesive and socially inclusive neighbourhoods, and they should have bipartisan support.
Bushfires
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (19:54): I will take the opportunity tonight to talk to the House about last month's bushfires that affected the Blue Mountains so drastically as well as part of my electorate of Calare. People may recall seeing and hearing about these fires on the news, but at first hand it was something else. During the height of the fire threat, I visited the control centre in Lithgow and witnessed the tireless efforts of all involved in preventing significant loss of property and, most probably, life. We have a great community in Lithgow, a very close community, and I was incredibly impressed by the efforts of the many people wanting to assist with the fighting of the fires.
Obviously it is now time to rebuild, although not in the electorate of Calare, I am happy to say. There were homes lost there, but there were over 200 lost further east across the mountains, and in excess of 500 square miles of land was burnt out. Damage was done to many sheds, fences and community assets. One business which had a particularly tough time was the iconic Zig Zag Railway, which was hard hit by the bushfire that started at Marrangaroo. I visited the site recently with the volunteers Mark Watson and Mark Langdon and saw firsthand the damage they are facing, which is particularly devastating as they were not far away from relaunching what is really the only major tourist attraction in the area. The damage has ruined any hope the tourist railway had of restarting in the near future. To put the iconic Zig Zag Railway back on track will take a lot of hard work. They will need the help of others to recover from their losses, and they would love to hear from anyone who could help with equipment and heavy machinery.
The last month has been very challenging for regional tourism, which suffered losses of up to $2 million a day during and in the wake of the bushfires. I welcome the contribution from the state government to provide funding to help promote the region. It will help put focus on recovering to previous visitor and visitor expenditure levels of four million visitors and $550 million a year. There is no better way to help than to support tourism and the jobs involved with that. Most of all, the people in Lithgow and the wider region want everyone to know that they are open for business and welcome you. I encourage everyone in the parliament to go there. It is a great area, a wonderful area.
I try to stay out of the road when these things are on. I think too many members of parliament get in the road at these times, but, when I visited, I was incredibly impressed by the way the control centre handled things and the way all the volunteers and the professionals went about their jobs. The Lithgow mayor and the general manager were absolutely fantastic in the way they worked with everybody and talked to the general population. It was quite amazing how people who were told that they had to evacuate put up with it, not knowing whether they should or they should not—but they took the advice and it was extraordinarily well handled.
I must make mention of the fact that the local Plymouth Brethren community took it upon themselves to run the place where the volunteers were fed and where they spent their nights—whatever sleep they got. The Plymouth Brethren kept the place tidy and clean and fed the volunteers. Given that the schools were closed in the Blue Mountains while all this was going on, the Plymouth Brethren took their children to go and do this work at the showground, where the volunteers were all fed and housed. They did a fantastic job. The way everyone acted was as cool as it was in Forbes a couple of years ago during their floods. They are all to be congratulated for what they did.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to electoral laws and practices and their administration as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of:
(a) submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System; and
(b) the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Electoral Reform and Electoral Matters appointed during previous Parliaments;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to foreign affairs, defence and trade as may be referred to it by:
(a) either House of the Parliament;
(b) the Minister for Foreign Affairs;
(c) the Minister for Defence; or
(d) the Minister for Trade and Investment;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 32 members, 12 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 8 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) six members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (10), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed;
(12) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(13) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time;
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and
(f) conduct meetings for the purpose of private briefings at any time while the Senate is sitting;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence, and Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, appointed during previous Parliaments;
(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(18) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Migration be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) regulations made or proposed to be made under the Migration Act 1958;
(b) proposed changes to the Migration Act 1958 and any related acts; and
(c) such other matters relating to migration as may be referred to it by the Minister responsible for the administration of the Migration Act 1958;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor‑General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Migration Regulations and the Joint Standing Committees on Migration appointed during previous Parliaments;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it by:
(i) either House of the Parliament; or
(ii) the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament Act 1974; or
(iii) the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(b) such other matters relating to the Parliamentary Zone as may be referred to it by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) such amendments to the National Capital Plan as are referred to it by a Minister responsible for administering the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988;
(d) such other matters relating to the National Capital as may be referred to it by:
(i) either House of the Parliament; or
(ii) the Minister responsible for administering the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988; and
(e) such matters relating to Australia’s territories as may be referred to it by:
(i) either House of the Parliament; or
(ii) the Minister responsible for the administration of the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands; the Territory of Christmas Island; the Coral Sea Islands Territory; the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands; the Australian Antarctic Territory, and the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands, and of Commonwealth responsibilities on Norfolk Island;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 12 members, the Deputy Speaker, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, the Deputy President and Chairman of Committees, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee (of whom one is the Deputy President or the Deputy Speaker when matters affecting the Parliamentary Zone are under consideration) constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on the National Capital and External Territories, the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory, the Joint Standing Committees on the New Parliament House, the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Zone and the Joint Committee on the National Capital appointed during previous Parliaments and of the House of Representatives and Senate Standing Committees on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure when sitting as a joint committee on matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme be appointed according to the practice of the Parliament;
(2) the committee:
(a) review the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme;
(b) review the administration and expenditure of the National Disability Insurance Scheme;
(c) review any matter in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme referred to the committee by a resolution of either House of the Parliament;
(d) report to each House of the Parliament; and
(e) have such other functions as agreed to by resolution of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(3) as soon as practicable after 30 June each year, the committee present an annual report to the Parliament on the activities of the committee during the year, which report should include particular reference to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Board quarterly and annual reports provided by the Standing Council on Disability Reform, as well as the independent launch evaluation reports;
(4) the committee consist of 12 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(6) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(7) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(8) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(10) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(11) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(12) each subcommittee shall have at least one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(13) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(14) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(15) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(17) the committee be:
(a) provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes.
(b) empowered to publish from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public;
(18) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Select Committee on DisabilityCare Australia appointed during the previous Parliament;
(19) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(20) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library be appointed to:
(a) consider and report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on any matters relating to the Parliamentary Library referred to it by the President or the Speaker;
(b) provide advice to the President and the Speaker on matters relating to the Parliamentary Library;
(c) provide advice to the President and the Speaker on an annual resource agreement between the Parliamentary Librarian and the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services; and
(d) receive advice and reports, including an annual report, directly from the Parliamentary Librarian on matters relating to the Parliamentary Library;
(2) the Committee consist of 13 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 3 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(3) every nomination:
(a) of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and
(b) from a minority group in the Senate or an independent Senator shall be determined by agreement between them, and, in the absence of agreement duly notified to the President, any question of the representation on the committee shall be determined by the Senate;
(4) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(5) the committee elect two of its members to be joint chairs, one being a Senator or Member, on an alternating basis each Parliament, who is a member of the government parties and one being a Senator or Member, on an alternating basis each Parliament, who is a member of the non-government parties, provided that the joint chairs may not be members of the same House;
(6) the joint chair nominated by the Government parties shall chair meetings of the committee, and the joint chair nominated by the non-Government parties shall take the chair whenever the other joint chair is not present;
(7) each of the joint chairs shall have a deliberative vote only, regardless of who is chairing the meeting;
(8) when votes on a question before the committee are equally divided, the question shall be resolved in the negative;
(9) three members of the committee shall constitute a quorum of the committee, but in a deliberative meeting a quorum shall include one member of each House of the Government parties and one member of either House of the non-Government parties;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees, consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to consider; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee, who shall have a deliberative vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) sit in public or private;
(b) report from time to time; and
(c) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the President and the Speaker may attend any meeting of the committee or a subcommittee as they see fit, but shall not be members of the committee or subcommittee and may not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Committees on the Parliamentary Library appointed during previous Parliaments;
(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(18) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) matters arising from treaties and related National Interest Analyses and proposed treaty actions and related Explanatory Statements presented or deemed to be presented to the Parliament;
(b) any question relating to a treaty or other international instrument, whether or not negotiated to completion, referred to the committee by:
(i) either House of the Parliament, or
(ii) a Minister; and
(iii) such other matters as may be referred to the committee by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and on such conditions as the Minister may prescribe;
(2) the committee consist of 16 members, 6 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(3) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(4) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(5) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(6) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(7) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(8) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(9) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint not more than three subcommittees each consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(10) in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (9), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on Treaties appointed during previous Parliaments;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) in accordance with sections 213 and 214 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect a:
(i) Government member as its chair; and
(ii) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit it public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity appointed during previous Parliaments;
(m) in carrying out its duties, the committee or any subcommittee ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest; and
(n) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) in accordance with section 242 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect a:
(i) Government member as its chair; and
(ii) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit in public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Corporations and Financial Services and Corporations and Securities appointed during previous Parliaments; and
(m) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) in accordance with section 6 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect a:
(i) Government member as its chair; and
(ii) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit in public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committee on Human Rights appointed during the previous Parliament;
(m) the committee may appoint counsel to advise the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and
(n) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) in accordance with section 5 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Act 2010, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect:
(i) a Government member as its chair; and
(ii) a non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee include a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings in any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit in public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the National Crime Authority, the Australian Crime Commission and Law Enforcement appointed during previous Parliaments;
(m) in carrying out its duties, the committee or any subcommittee ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest; and
(n) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples be appointed to inquire into and report on steps that can be taken to progress towards a successful referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition, and in conducting the inquiry, the committee:
(a) work to build a secure strong multi-partisan parliamentary consensus around the timing, specific content and wording of referendum proposals for Indigenous constitutional recognition; and
(b) consider:
(i) the creation of an advisory group whose membership includes representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to assist the work of the committee;
(ii) the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians; and
(iii) mechanisms to build further engagement and support for the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across all sectors of the community, and taking into account and complementing the existing work being undertaken by Recognise;
(2) the committee present to Parliament an interim report on or before 30 September 2014 and its final report on or before 30 June 2015;
(3) the committee consist of eight members, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee’s final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) each subcommittee shall have at least one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(12) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(13) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time, in order to progress constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples appointed during the previous Parliament;
(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(18) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to move:
That:
(1) a Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia be appointed according to the practice of the Parliament;
(2) the committee consider policies for developing the parts of Australia which lie north of the Tropic of Capricorn, spanning Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland, and in doing so:
(a) examine the potential for development of the region’s mineral, energy, agricultural, tourism, defence and other industries;
(b) provide recommendations to:
(i) enhance trade and other investment links with the Asia-Pacific;
(ii) establish a conducive regulatory and economic environment;
(iii) address impediments to growth; and
(iv) set conditions for private investment and innovation;
(c) identify the critical economic and social infrastructure needed to support the long term growth of the region, and ways to support planning and investment in that infrastructure;
(d) report to each House of the Parliament; and
(e) have such other functions as agreed to by resolutions of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(3) as soon as practicable after 30 June 2014, the committee present an interim report to Parliament on the activities of the committee, which should include particular reference to the outcomes of public hearings held across Northern Australia, and any specialist knowledge emanating from the public submissions process;
(4) the committee deliver its final report and recommendations to the Parliament on or before 6 September 2014;
(5) the committee consist of 12 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(6) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination in the House of Representatives, of the Government or Opposition Whip or Whips, or any minority group or independent Member, and in the Senate, of the Leader of the Government or Opposition, or any minority group or independent Senator, and such participating member:
(a) shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purposes.
(b) may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all rights of a committee member except that a participating member may not vote on any questions before the committee;
(7) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(8) the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee’s final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;
(9) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(10) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(11) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(12) five members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(13) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(14) each subcommittee shall have at least one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(15) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(16) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member or either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(17) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(18) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(19) the committee be:
(a) provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes.
(b) empowered to publish from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public;
(20) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(21) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Mr Pyne to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, and for related purposes.
Mr Dutton to present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Health Act 1953, and for related purposes.
Mr Pyne to move:
That this House:
(1) repeal the following resolutions:
(a) Broadcasting and re-broadcasting of excerpts of proceedings, adopted 30 November 1988;
(b) Televising of proceedings, adopted 16 October 1991;
(c) Extension of House monitoring service, adopted 28 September 1993;
(d) Radio broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings-general principles, adopted 20 September 1994; and
(e) Broadcasting of proceedings-conditions for broadcasters, adopted 1 May 1996; and
(2) in their place, adopt the following resolution:
1. Provision of broadcast
a. The House authorises the broadcast and rebroadcast of the proceedings and excerpts of proceedings of the House, its committees and of the Federation Chamber in accordance with this resolution.
b. The House authorises the provision of sound and vision coverage of proceedings of the House, its committees, and of the Federation Chamber, including records of past proceedings, through the House Monitoring Service and through the Parliament of Australia website.
c. Access to the House Monitoring Service sound and vision coverage of the proceedings of the House, its committees and the Federation Chamber is provided to persons and organisations as determined by the Speaker, on terms and conditions determined by the Speaker which must not be inconsistent with this resolution.
d. The Speaker shall report to the House on persons and organisations in receipt of the service and on any terms and conditions determined under paragraph 1(c).
e. Use of sound and vision coverage of proceedings of the House, its committees and the Federation Chamber, including records of past proceedings, published on the Parliament of Australia website is subject to conditions of use determined by the Speaker.
2. Broadcast of House of Representatives and Federation Chamber proceedings – House monitoring service
Access to proceedings provided through the House Monitoring Service is subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a. Only the following broadcast material shall be used:
i. switched sound and vision feed of the House of Representatives, its committees and the Federation Chamber provided by the Parliament that is produced for broadcast, re-broadcast and archiving; and
ii. official broadcast material supplied by authorised parliamentary staff.
b. Broadcast material shall be used only for the purposes.
i. political party advertising or election campaigns; or
ii. commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising.
c. Reports of proceedings shall be such as to provide a balanced presentation of differing views.
d. Excerpts of proceedings which are subsequently withdrawn may be broadcast only if the withdrawal is also reported.
e. The instructions of the Speaker or his or her delegates, which are not inconsistent with these conditions or the rules applying to the broadcasting of committee proceedings, shall be observed.
3. Broadcast of committee proceedings
The following conditions apply to the broadcasting of committee proceedings:
a. Recording and broadcasting of proceedings of a committee is subject to the authorisation of the committee;
b. A committee may authorise the broadcasting of only its public proceedings;
c. Recording and broadcasting of a committee is not permitted during suspensions of proceedings, or following an adjournment of proceedings;
d. A committee may determine conditions, not inconsistent with this resolution, for the recording and broadcasting of its proceedings, may order that any part of its proceedings not be recorded or broadcast, and may give instructions for the observance of conditions so determined and orders so made. A committee shall report to the House any wilful breach of such conditions, orders or instructions;
e. Recording and broadcasting of proceedings of a committee shall not interfere with the conduct of those proceedings, shall not encroach into the committee’s work area, or capture documents (either in hard copy or electronic form) in the possession of committee members, witnesses or committee staff;
f. Broadcasts of proceedings of a committee, including excerpts of committee proceedings, shall be for the purpose only of making fair and accurate reports of those proceedings, and shall not be used for:
i. political party advertising or election campaigns; or
ii. commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising;
g. Where a committee intends to permit the broadcasting of its proceedings, a witness who is to appear in those proceedings shall be given reasonable opportunity, before appearing in the proceedings, to object to the broadcasting of the proceedings and to state the ground of the objection. The committee shall consider any such objection, having regard to the proper protection of the witness and the public interest in the proceedings, and if the committee decides to permit broadcasting of the proceedings notwithstanding the witness’ objection, the witness shall be so informed before appearing in the proceedings.
4. Radio broadcast of parliamentary proceedings by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation – general principles
The House adopts the following general principles agreed to by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings on 19 March 2013:
a. Allocation of the broadcast between the Senate and the House of Representatives
The proceedings of Parliament shall be broadcast live whenever a House is sitting. The allocation of broadcasts between the Senate and the House of Representatives will be in accordance with the standing determinations made by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. It is anticipated that over time, the coverage of each House will be approximately equal.
b. Rebroadcast of questions and answers
At the conclusion of the live broadcast of either House, questions without notice and answers thereto from the House not allocated the broadcast shall be rebroadcast.
c. Unusual or exceptional circumstances
Nothing in these general principles shall prevent the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings from departing from them in unusual or exceptional circumstances.
5. This resolution shall continue in force unless and until amended or rescinded by the House in this or a subsequent Parliament.
Ms O'Dwyer to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that 1 December 2013 is World AIDS Day;
(2) recognises that:
(a) more than 35 million people now live with HIV/AIDS worldwide, and almost 10 per cent of these are under the age of 15;
(b) every day nearly 6,300 people contract HIV—nearly 262 every hour;
(c) in Australia in 2012 there were 25,000 people living with HIV and 1253 new diagnoses of HIV infection—a 10 per cent increase from previous years;
(d) in 2012, 1.6 million people died from AIDS‑related illnesses;
(e) in some communities HIV rates are as high as 40 per cent;
(f) since the beginning of the epidemic in the 1980s, more than 75 million people have been infected with HIV and nearly 36 million have died of AIDS‑related illnesses;
(g) there are now outstanding antiviral treatments available to people living with HIV; and
(h) although a lot of work has been done and many medical advances have been made, there is no cure and no vaccine, so a lot of research and work still needs to be done before we see the end of HIV;
(3) acknowledges that:
(a) in July 2014, Melbourne will host the 20th International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2014);
(b) the conference will bring together 14,000 delegates from around 200 countries, which will be the largest medical conference ever held in Australia; and
(c) the conference will be chaired by Nobel Laureate, Professor Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, and Professor Sharon Lewin; and
(4) calls on the Parliament to:
(a) continue Australia’s strong commitment to an enduring effective partnership between government, scientists and the community to meet the needs of people living with HIV;
(b) continue Australia’s strong commitment to medical health and research; and
(c) foster and cultivate Australia’s medical health and research community and researchers to ensure we stay at the forefront of all aspects of treatment, care and research in HIV.
Dr Stone to move:
That this House:
(1) celebrates the success of Rural Clinical Schools (RCS) around Australia, commenced in 1999 by the then Minister for Health, the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge MP, and continued by his successor, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP;
(2) notes that:
(a) RCS were designed to overcome the maldistribution of all doctors including general practitioners across Australia, which left country regions short of general practitioners and other specialty doctors;
(b) students undertaking training in rural locations have academic results that are equal to or better than their metropolitan counterparts;
(c) published data from public universities show high rates of RCS graduates working in, or intending to work in rural areas; and
(d) the information gathered through an independent project tracking all Australian and New Zealand medical students—Medical Schools Outcomes Database—demonstrates that long term placements in a rural setting through RCS have a significant impact on the vocational choice and intention to practice in a rural or remote setting as well as future career specialty focus; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) continue its support for these excellent initiatives; and
(b) examine opportunities to increase intern and postgraduate training places in rural locations to enhance the future of specialty medical service delivery with a focus on general practitioners in rural and regional Australia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (09:30): If it is the wish of the Federation Chamber, the time for constituency statements can be extended by 30 minutes to approximately 10.30 am. There being no objection, we will proceed on that basis.
Small Business
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) (09:30): Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, on this first opportunity that I have, can I congratulate you on attaining the very high position of Deputy Speaker. I know you do a fantastic job.
I want to speak today about supporting local business, because I think that it is a very important part of what all Australians can do, not just governments and not just small businesses themselves but every single person in the country. The Shop Small campaign has been launched in Australia. It encourages consumers to support the thousands of hardworking small business people who contribute to the character as well as the economy in our local communities. I want to encourage certainly my constituents in the western corridor of Brisbane and Ipswich, throughout the electorate of Oxley, but also people in the neighbouring electorates, particularly in the run-up to Christmas, to go and support their local small businesses—to support their local butcher, the local baker, the fruit and veg guy who is down the road.
There are a whole range of fantastic small businesses with fantastic people who take an enormous risk in life and a challenge to work for themselves and to take on that responsibility of not only earning a wage for themselves but often employing other people, whether it is family members or others in the community. I want to acknowledge the hard work that they do. I want to encourage the work that they do. And I want to encourage people, when they think about their next shopping trip, to think small.
Think small; shop small. Go down to your local IGA. Go down to your local grocer. Go down to your local baker. Say g'day and introduce yourself to them. You will probably find that they may be a neighbour of yours. They may be somebody who lives in your street or in your suburb. They are people who also shop locally. I want to make sure that we are giving back as much as we can to small business, because they really are the backbone of the country and the backbone of the economy.
An honourable member: And we recognise that.
Mr RIPOLL: Absolutely. This Saturday, 23 November, is Shop Small Saturday. I am going to be doing what a lot of other people should be doing, and that is particularly going out and visiting some small businesses, local businesses, and talking to them about what we can all do as individuals—not just as members of parliament but as individuals. I am going to drop into my local IGA at Springfield Lakes and chat to Terry and his staff about their business and what they are doing in the run-up to Christmas and make sure they know they have good supporters in the local area. I am also going to be stopping by at Charlton's bait and tackle and visiting Brian and Craig there at Redbank. It is a fantastic little business, competing against some of the big guys in the world, but they have been in business for more than 30 years. Bait and tackle—I do not have to explain what they do, but they are a fantastic—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr RIPOLL: Yes, if you like to go fishing, they are the place to visit. There are a whole heap of other fantastic local businesses in my area. But I know this story is the same story right across every electorate and every community, right across Australia. Shop small and help your local communities. (Time expired)
Mobile Phone Services
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (09:33): Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, can I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. It is very well deserved, and I know you will do an outstanding job in this parliament.
I rise today to talk about a very important issue, especially to regional and rural communities. It is to do with mobile phone black spots. This is an issue which continues to be raised constantly by communities across Australia where they are lacking in mobile telecommunications.
I was privileged to have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications come to my electorate of Wannon some three weeks after the election to talk to some of my local communities about this issue. We had public meetings at Mirranatwa, Landsborough and Moonambel, where communities came and told the parliamentary secretary how there is a real need to address mobile black spots and about the damage that is done to those communities due to a lack of mobile telecommunications. It hurts their businesses. It hurts their communities. Most importantly, it impacts on their safety. With the fire season approaching, a lot of these communities are left vulnerable because they do not have telecommunications. They will not be able to get the early warning through SMS that other communities can receive where they do have mobile phone telecommunications.
This is an issue we need to address. I am pleased to be able to say that the coalition understand that. They have put $100 million towards creating mobile telecommunication services in regional and rural areas. It is a fantastic start. We need to get the two programs rolled out as soon as possible so we can start seeing the benefit in these communities of improved telecommunications. We will have to do more, but this is a fantastic start.
These communities at these meetings spoke from the heart to the parliamentary secretary about how they are being left behind because they do not have access to this form of telecommunications. I know the parliamentary secretary heard the message loud and clear. I know that he is determined to roll out a proper black spots program. I will be with him 100 per cent of the way. We saw six years of inaction in this space under the previous Labor government. It was not good enough. We now need to act on behalf of these communities and similar communities across the nation to fix this problem. (Time expired)
Kingsford Smith Electorate: Clovelly Road Better Block
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (09:36): On 27 October this year I was fortunate to attend the Clovelly Road Better Block. This was an event that was held on the northern boundary of my electorate of Kingsford Smith. The event involved the redesign of the local community and the redesign of local public space to make it greener, safer and more livable. The better block program was the idea of Andrew Howard, and it was conceived in New York in the United States. It involves a community coming together to redesign their community to make it a more livable, a greener space and a better place to live. Since it began a couple of years ago there have been more than 40 better blocks throughout the world. Their goal is a simple one: to encourage locals to reimagine their streets and turn their ideas into something that people can see, touch and feel.
For the event in Kingsford Smith, the community came together and transformed one of the blocks on Clovelly Road, quite a busy thoroughfare in my electorate. In the lead-up to this, they held meetings where locals, businesses, community organisations and local politicians came together to imagine what the street and block could look like and what they wanted it to look like. Importantly, they consulted children. They asked children what sort of environment they would like to live in. One of those children was Archie Stubbs. He spoke quite eloquently on the day about the fact that kids simply wanted the cars to drive a little bit slower down their streets so they could ride their bikes safely. That is not too hard. Archie is 13 years old. When they originated this program, the sidewalk was widened, the speed limit was lowered, the street was green with plants and flowers lining the footpath, outdoor seating was installed and art shows, coffee shops and bookshops popped up along the side of the street. The street came alive. The result was a village-style atmosphere on the fringe of the biggest city in Australia.
The organisers obtained council approval. They attracted about 2,000 visitors. I was fortunate to visit. It was a fun, uplifting experience which showed the true potential of a space normally used solely for getting from A to B. There were a lot of volunteers involved. I want to thank in particular Phil Stubbs, the organiser from the community who was the brainchild behind this. Phil said about the day:
Suddenly the street was better. Better for people. For kids. For older people. For families. For dogs. It had art. It had music. It had food on the footpath. It became a more human place.
I would like to thank Clovelly Road Better Block and all the volunteers and supporters for their hard work and efforts.
Parkes Electorate: Drought
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (09:40): The drought in the north-west of New South Wales and Western Queensland has for some time been very serious. As to my neighbour to the north, this drought is now biting, especially in my electorate shires of Walgett, Brewarrina and Bourke. I would like to acknowledge the hardship that people in the north-west region are dealing with on a daily basis. We came through the millennium 10-year drought, followed by several years of floods and straight away quickly returned to drought conditions.
The policy settings in this area are quite complex and, while I agree that we need a policy that encourages preparedness, the reality is that following these 10 years of drought and years of flooding it is remarkable that these farmers in the region have been as prepared as they are. As a matter of fact, there have been 18 months without any meaningful rain, and many of these farmers have been hand-feeding for over 12 months.
The government has recognised that the circumstances are severe; and there was a policy adjustment shortly after the change of government, which I welcomed. This is not solely a matter for the federal government and is vital for it and the state government to work together on this issue. I have kept in contact with my state colleagues and have offered my support to the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson. My neighbour, the member for New England and Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Barnaby Joyce, is well aware of the situation and has looked at measures to address this issue as one of the first items of business in the new government.
The Minister for Agriculture has made available an additional $10 million for concessional loans in New South Wales. The minister is also looking at working with the New South Wales government to implement a program for watering points on drought-affected properties. I certainly encourage the New South Wales government to work with the minister to get this program going as quickly as possible. The farmers from my electorate are resilient and resourceful and are used to dealing with the variable weather conditions we have in this country. Government can be there to ease the burden and facilitate a way of dealing with what can appear to be an insurmountable problem. I would encourage the farmers in my electorate who are concerned about the situation they are facing to contact the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority as the first port of call. Federal government assistance is administered through the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority. It is also available to answer questions that farmers might have on this issue.
Canberra Electorate: HerCanberra
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (09:42): There is an increasingly powerful force in Canberra, one that is slowly but surely emerging as a supreme influence on the way Canberrans eat, shop, dress, play and live. This force is a blog called HerCanberra. Started as a hobby by its creator, Amanda Whitley, HerCanberra is now a fully-fledged professional operation, featuring the voices of local writers on topics of interest to the capital's female population.
Last week I was lucky enough to be one of 10 women invited by HerCanberra to an event they called 'Canberra's most fascinating women'. Ten Canberra women from diverse backgrounds—from public policy, Indigenous leadership, the arts, child protection and small business—were invited to dinner, for the purpose of stimulating and then recording their conversations about every aspect of life in Canberra.
I cannot speak for myself, but the other nine guests were certainly fascinating: Sarina del Fuego, RAW Canberra showcase director and Short + Sweet Cabaret Canberra producer and director; Rachel Evagelou, owner of Handmade Canberra, a fantastic shop in Civic, winner of the Start-Up Category of the ACT Telstra Business Awards; Deborah Hill, founding member of the Canberra Roller Derby League, and Registrar, Exhibitions and Loans at the National Library of Australia; Vicky Kidd-Gallichan, a fashion designer and owner of couture label, Rockstars and Royalty—she was fantastic; Patricia Mackey, Principal Public Advocate for the ACT government; Carmel McGregor, Deputy Secretary, Department of Defence; Rosanna Stevens, founder of Scissors Paper Pen, a literary collective giving young, emerging and new writers professional development and publishing opportunities; and Rachelle Towart, CEO of the Australian Indigenous Leadership Centre.
The night reminded me of what a special place Canberra is. The people who live here, in this case the women who live here, really do lead fascinating lives. They spend their spare time contributing to our society at local, national and international levels. This observation is not just anecdotal. The National Australia Bank's charitable giving index recently found that Canberrans lead the nation in charitable giving. It has also been found that we in the national capital have the highest rate of volunteerism.
I am sure that HerCanberra could have invited any 10 Canberra women along and we would have had an equally fascinating night. The conversations will be edited and posted on the HerCanberra site. I would like to thank Amanda and HerCanberra for organising the night and I also thank the wonderful team of Canberra small businesses they assembled to help out on the night: Foodish, Fyshwick Fresh Food Markets, Craft ACT, Chalk Design, Beata English, and Positive Influence. Unfortunately, we only just warmed up by the time we had to head home. I look forward to meeting these nine fascinating women again and I congratulate HerCanberra for this great initiative.
Kooyong Electorate: Overseas Aid
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (09:45): I rise to speak about two active community organisations that I recently met: WaterAid and the Canterbury Girls' Secondary College's World Vision VGen group led by Maeve Erlington—to discuss the valuable work these groups do assisting people around the world affected by poverty.
WaterAid is a community organisation that seeks to promote the importance of worldwide access to WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene. WaterAid has projects in 27 countries, including some of our closest neighbours such as Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste and Cambodia. One initiative WaterAid promotes was marked yesterday, 19 November, as World Toilet Day—an event acknowledged by the UN—which draws attention to the level of global sanitation.
VGen is World Vision Australia's youth arm, building a movement to end global poverty and injustice. VGen works with our local schools and universities to create a network of young people across Australia to act as a single advocate for those living in poverty. These organisations work alongside other important community organisations such as the Global Poverty Project and the Oaktree Foundation, Australia's largest youth volunteer organisation, which has its main office in the electorate of Kooyong.
The benefits of Australia's aid program, which is around $5 billion a year, are quite substantial. Most recently, in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, Australia established a field hospital capable of running around the clock and treating up to 200 patients a day. In 2012 Australia's aid programs supported the immunisation of over 500,000 children in PNG for measles and polio and over 1.2 million women for tetanus.
We continue to support the Millennium Development Goals, which have been very successful, including trying to affect and reduce the number of people living in poverty. This has been done, substantially cutting by half those at a global level to around 700 million people fewer than those who were living in extreme poverty in 1990. Over two billion people have gained access to improved sources of drinking water, with 89 per cent of the world's population now using such water. But there is much still to do. With 2015 just around the corner the international community is working to design a new global development framework.
Community organisations like WaterAid and VGen play an important role in raising awareness of the plight of those still living in poverty and will play an important role in ensuring that the world is able to continue to pursue the elimination of global poverty beyond 2015.
Greenpeace
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (09:48): On 18 September, activists from the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise attempted to attach a banner to a Gazprom oil platform in the Russian Arctic. After firing warning shots and detaining two activists under armed guard, Russian authorities then seized the ship, which was in international waters, and towed it to Murmansk. Among them is the Australian Colin Russell and a number of my constituents have raised his situation with me. As David Ritter, from Greenpeace Australia Pacific, has said in a letter to federal MPs, 'These charges are a manifestly disproportionate response to a peaceful protest.' Indeed, there have been some robust responses by some other governments and parliaments and I urge the Australian government to match them.
The Arctic Sunrise is a Dutch-flagged ship and on 21 October the Dutch government initiated arbitration proceedings against Russia through the International Convention of the Law of the Sea. The British ambassador in Moscow has raised the case with Russia's deputy foreign minister; and the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has met the Greenpeace UK Executive Director to discuss the arrest of six British nationals. A fortnight ago, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, told BBC Radio:
Their charges have been dropped from piracy to hooliganism, but I still think that is excessive. They are not hooligans, they are protesters …
The French government released a statement, in the lead-up to high-level talks between the French Prime Minister, the Russian prime minister and the Russian President, which read:
France wants the Greenpeace activists to be released as soon as possible, especially the French national. By putting it on the agenda we will show that this subject is followed in France at the highest level. But we can not imagine that the French intervention alone can solve the situation of more than 10 nationalities.
The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, spoke to the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, by phone and expressed concerns, despite the fact that no Germans have been detained. The chancellor's spokesman said:
The chancellor expressed her concern to Mr Putin over the arrest of the crew of the Greenpeace boat, impounded in Russia, and voiced her hope that this case will soon be resolved.
The European parliament released a statement saying that the charges, while they may be switched to hooliganism, are still disproportionate. The statement stressed that the charges could be seen as threats to democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of demonstration.
I urge the Russian government to drop these charges. Just as the Greenpeace activists have made their point, so too the Russian government has responded by making its point. After over two months, it is high time that Colin Russell and the other Greenpeace activists were released. I strongly support the statement of the opposition concerning this matter.
Child Care
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (09:51): Deputy Speaker Scott, I would like to congratulate you on the position that you hold. You and your wife have been an adornment to this building for a long time. You are greatly honoured, and you have been a blessing. I congratulate you. It is a fitting response to your years in this parliament.
Having said that, I have been nice to the men in this place for too long. I am now appealing to the women, because I have given up on the men. The reason I have given up on the men is that, for the last 30 years, there has been an inappropriate approach to child care in the bush. Recently, Kilmany Uniting Care, who are the welfare arm of the Uniting Church, have said that, as of February, because it is unviable, they will not be providing child care in four centres across Gippsland and McMillan. None of the models that we have for child care in the bush go. In larger regional centres, places like outer Melbourne, where I am, they work, and they work very well. They benefit the child and the family. That is all good. But, in the bush, we have just seen that four centres are unviable; they are losing money. One was a result of a promise of the previous Labor government. I greatly appreciated that they put that centre into one of the areas. That is now closed—that beautiful building, providing absolutely fantastic opportunities.
I appeal to the women of this place. Do you know why kids get killed on farms? Because they are being babysat in the workplace. There is not one building site in the city on which any female member of the House in this room tonight would allow a child to be babysat. Just as many difficulties exist on farms as far as danger in the workplace. That is why kids get killed on farms—because mum is in the shed looking after the kids, and dad says, 'I’ll take the baby on the tractor; she'll be right.' Well, she is not right.
We have to look at new, flexible, ways. I know it is a big ask, but there has to be flexible childcare for the bush. Why hasn’t somebody said, 'Yes, the bush is important'? Women in the bush are important. Small business in the bush are important. I have heard some great things from members this morning, but I do not hear anybody talking about child care as it affects the bush. There was a whole conference this morning on child care. Not one of them was providing a service but they are all doing some research. Did any of them mention the bush? No. It is only about child care for those that live in the centres, where they can get access to that type of child care. I appeal to the women of this building: in your deliberations, think about women and child care in the bush.
National Security
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (09:54): Thank you, Deputy Speaker Scott, and congratulations on your position.
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition made a careful, nuanced statement about the events relating to Australia's relationship with Indonesia. He said:
The opposition supports the Prime Minister's commitment to national security, and it supports the comments about the importance of our national security.
He added:
… it does also require Australia to recognise that our Indonesian friends have been offended.
He emphasised that this 'should be above party politics.' He concluded in very measured and grave terms:
Labor wants the government to be successful in rebuilding the relationship with Indonesia. This is what all sides need and want—a recovery of trust.
In passing, he also suggested that perhaps the government, the Prime Minister, consider the kind of reaction by the American President to a similar problem concerning German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The Leader of the Opposition did not say, as some media outlets say, that Australia should apologise. It is true that in 2004 Indonesian officials admitted spying on Australia. But these tit-for-tat allegations do not help solve the current situation.
It is true that the person who is the progenitor of all these Australian secrets, Mr Snowdon, is now happily ensconced under the protection of the Russian government of Mr Vladimir Putin. Of course, Mr Snowdon's original public purpose was to protect the privacy of US citizens. At least, that is a defensible aim. What is the purpose of all of these revelations now? They certainly do not help Australia; they certainly do not help Indonesia. Who elected Mr Snowdon and The Guardian newspaper to represent our interests? But, worst of all, is the reaction of News Limited to the Leader of the Opposition's measured and nuanced responses. Greg Sheridan, in his front page article, said that the Leader of the Opposition had 'urged' the government to do something. No—he said 'consider.' The editorial refers to the Leader of the Opposition 'obliquely referring'. It does not say what he actually said. Dennis Shanahan is worse; he missed all the nuances. He said that the member for Maribyrnong was 'too tempted, less certain and precise'. I think he should appear on the psychic channel if he wants to channel what the leader is thinking rather than focus on his actual words.
The opposition was very careful. We want to restore Australia's relations with Indonesia. We support the government doing something about this matter. Something will have to be done. It was only a consideration of what other countries have done that was offered by the— (Time expired)
Shop Small
Bloody Big Swim
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (09:57): Shop Small is an important initiative that I was pleased to launch, along with the member for Deakin and the Prime Minister, in Croydon where we were trying to put a spotlight on the importance of small business and family enterprise not only to our economy but to the communities within which they are such an important part. I would like to congratulate American Express. They have brought this concept to Australia after it being very successful in the United States and also in parts of Europe. We think it is a really welcome measure. We see some of the bigger businesses getting alongside small businesses, promoting the interests and opportunities for small business offers. Other providers such as National Australia Bank, Virgin are involved in this initiative.
23 November is Shop Small Saturday. I encourage all members of this House and of the Senate to get alongside and spend some time with a small business person, to understand the challenges that they are facing, the courage that they are showing in mortgaging their houses and, in many cases, their firstborns to provide economic opportunities for themselves and others in their community and for our nation more generally. It is an important time and an important opportunity to make a statement about the importance of small business.
Under the previous government we saw the number of people deriving a livelihood out of being an employee in a small business actually decline. There were 412,000 fewer people at the end of Labor's period in government employed by a small business than was the case when they commenced. You actually saw a contraction in the small business employment contribution. Small business used to provide 53 per cent of every private sector job when the Howard government left office. By the time there was a change of government, just a few months ago, that was down to 43 per cent. There were 3,000 fewer small businesses employing people at the end of Labor's term than there were when Labor was first elected. So, despite the economy growing at or around trend rates and despite population growth, we saw the small business economy under pressure. 'Shop Small' is an important statement. It says that we see small businesses as a crucial part of our economy. They bring vitality and opportunity to neighbourhoods right across our continent. Let's get behind them. Let's not just say they are important; let's show that with our hard-earned money. It needs to go into small businesses if we value and want to continue to see their contribution. Small business is too big to ignore. Small Business Saturday is an opportunity to show that.
On another topic to do with size, there is a—and I apologise for the colloquial term—Bloody Big Swim happening in my electorate early in January. January is a great time to be on the Mornington Peninsula, a great coastline. I had not thought about swimming 11.2 kilometres as the best way of appreciating the coastline. I might say I will not be doing the swim, because it might bring on a by-election in my electorate! But this is important. The Bloody Big Swim is on 18 January. Get behind the work of the lifesaving clubs in our community and swim from Frankston to Mills Beach. It is an interesting way to see the peninsula. Be a part of the Bloody Big Swim.
Noori, Mr Noorullah
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (10:01): I would like to pay tribute this morning to Mr Noorullah Noori, who sadly passed away on 14 September this year. Mr Noori arrived with his family from Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1987. On settling in Australia, Mr Noori set upon a path that would see him devote his entire life to helping others in the community. The extraordinary contribution to our local community that Mr Noori has made cannot be understated.
Mr Noori established the Afghan Community Mosque, later known as the Omar Farooq Mosque. He served as the imam and was a respected and esteemed leader. Mr Noori was present at the most significant times in the lives of his community members. He presided over marriage ceremonies and newborn ceremonies, he provided counselling for families and couples and he made visits offering compassion and support to those nearing the end of their lives. Mr Noori also helped many in our community adjust to a new life in Australia. He provided advice, support and encouragement to countless families and eased their settlement into the community.
Mr Noori's work was not confined to the Afghan community. Through his work at the mosque he supported Muslims from many different backgrounds. And within the wider community he assisted people regardless of their race, colour or creed. Perhaps Mr Noori's most significant contribution, however, was his work with young people. As imam, Mr Noori educated the younger generation on all aspects of their faith as well as emphasising the importance of living as law-abiding citizens and responsible members of the community. Over the years, Mr Noori inspired and encouraged many young people to achieve their goals.
Mr Noori loved Australia. I am told this by many members of the Afghan community. He was fiercely loyal to his adopted country and used every opportunity to remind members of his community of how important it was to live honestly and peacefully. I know it is the hope of the Afghan community that a new generation of leaders will now follow in his footsteps.
Mr Noori was a humble man. He never sought any recognition for his work. Everything he did was voluntary. When he was offered a wage, he refused, saying the money should go towards the work of the mosque and to help those that needed it. You will not see his name in lists of awards or accolades. He actively avoided this sort of recognition. What you do see and hear, however, is the words of warmth and affection with which he is remembered by the community.
Over 4,000 people attended Mr Noori's funeral. A message posted by the Afghan embassy to Mr Noori's family on the day said of his passing:
We share your grievance in this tragic occasion. You are not alone, the entire Afghan Community has lost its spiritual father today.
That is a sentiment which I know is shared by many. On behalf of the constituents of Holt, on behalf of all here present in the chamber and on behalf of the Afghan community in Australia, I would like to thank Mr Noori for the thousands of people he has helped and supported over the years in his extraordinary career and life.
Bushfires
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:04): Bushfires are part of our Australian landscape. We have had a long history of bushfires in this country. Probably our largest ever bushfire was back in 1851—the Black Thursday bushfire in Victoria, in which over one quarter of that state was burnt. My electorate of Hughes has also experienced and has a long history of bushfires. And we know that, as sure as night follows day, those bushfires will come again to our area.
That is why I am very pleased to advise the House of a product, invented in the Sutherland Shire and produced locally in southern Sydney, called the WaterGate. This product was designed by a local resident of Illawong called Clarence Buckley. The way the WaterGate works is that you attach it to your downpipe and it enables you to backfill your gutters and enables the water to stay in your gutters and prevent ember attacks to your house for days or until you undo the WaterGate. The reason this is important is that our bushfire services tell us that ember attack is the main hazard to houses in a bushfire. Many houses are located in bushfire prone areas. The way the ember attack destroys the house is by embers getting into leaves in the gutter, and that is what causes the house to catch fire. This product backwashes your gutters, removes those leaves and leaves a barrier of water up in the gutter.
This is a fantastic product. But WaterGate have had a problem getting their product to the market because of the massive rebates they must pay to the major retailers. This was recently noted in a KPMG report in Australia's Food and Grocery Council, which also applies to suppliers in our hardware sector, where they noted a significant increase in the trade spend: the trade discounts and promotional allowances paid to retailers by the supplier had increased from 19.5 per cent to 23.4 per cent in 2011-12. So a producer—someone who designs these products—actually has to pay something like 25 per cent of the gross sale back to the retailer in a rebate. For this reason the manufacturers and designers of WaterGate have decided to market their product direct to the consumer through the internet.
This is a very significant invention. It is something that is made, designed and produced locally in southern Sydney. It is something that I would hope the building codes all around Australia look at, because it has the potential to save millions of dollars worth of property. It also has the potential to prevent people from climbing onto their roofs—and we have seen many reports of people being very badly, even fatally, injured through climbing onto their roofs to clean the gutters. This device enables people to do that without actually getting onto their roofs.
Regional Development Australia
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:07): The Regional Development Australia Fund was designed to stimulate regional economies and create jobs by funding important community infrastructure projects, and there is not a federal electorate around this country that has not seen the benefit of that. Certainly, when we budgeted for and announced the Regional Development Australia round 5 to improve communities around this country, I heard noises from those opposite that they might support Regional Development Australia. In fact, I remained optimistic until I read the announcement of the National Stronger Regions Fund on 29 August 2013 by those opposite before the election. Then I discovered that there will be no Regional Development Australia funding in 2013-14, none in 2014-15, and in fact only $200 million thereafter. Then I saw the fiscal impact of their budget announcements, made just a couple of days before the election: $2.5 billion was ripped out of the Regional Development Australia Fund. Then I saw the MRRT bill's explanatory memorandum: $2.7 billion was ripped out.
In my local community, we have seen funding for two important projects under round 5 ripped away—allegedly because contracts were not signed, and they had not been, but the money had been budgeted for and we had announced it. The councils had submitted projects to Regional Development Australia, to the federal government department, to get them approved, and they were approved. The Ipswich City Council was allocated $349,000 for a new hard stand at the Willowbank Raceway. This was to be a multipurpose hard stand, useful not just for viewing races but also for driver training. Also we saw $219,000 given to the Somerset Regional Council for upgrades to the very popular Lowood Pool, and the council had also put $24,200 towards that. The Ipswich City Council had also put funding towards the Willowbank hard stand, a $1.4 million project for the very popular Willowbank motorsport precinct in South-East Queensland—in fact, the most popular motorsport precinct in the state.
The coalition has ripped that funding away from my community. It is not just my community, but across the country you will see it. I know that in the electorate of Wright there was funding announced, but they have lost that funding. I know, because I used to represent large sections of that electorate. We have seen this across the country, and those opposite should hang their heads in shame, because I am sure they campaigned for those projects. None of those projects they campaigned for will be delivered, and there will be a gap in terms of regional infrastructure funding in this country of two years. It is led by the coalition. The funding should be committed and they should reverse this decision.
Brisbane Electorate: Multicultural Centre
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (10:10): Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair, and I congratulate you on your ascension to the chair. I am absolutely delighted to speak today on behalf of all of those who were involved in the opening of the Divercity Multicultural Community Centre in Newmarket. I want particularly to congratulate Jeannie Mok, Pastor Jonathon and Pastor David Mok and all of the board who have put many hours of hard work and dedication into the opening of this centre. I was there along with my state colleague Robert Cavallucci and Councillor Vicki Howard. I was there to celebrate the opening, but it was a day of mixed emotions for me, because it was the original site of the Italian-Australian Club, where I spent many, many years attending Italian Independence Day functions and weddings. Unfortunately, the club could no longer continue financially. Several years ago I and many other members became shareholders, but it was put into liquidation and that was a very sad day for the Italian community.
I am absolutely delighted that Jeannie Mok and her team are now the custodians. It will be the home of the Multicultural Community Centre as well as the Asian-Pacific Institute and the International City Church. I want to pay tribute to Jeannie, because she has been working on behalf of the multicultural community of Queensland for over 20 years, and her contribution and dedication saw her awarded an honour in this year's Australian honours. There have been many wonderful people who have graced the centre over the years, and they have helped countless Australians with a number of critical issues, including learning new skills, finding work and overcoming the trauma of war and oppression.
I commend all of those who have dedicated their time to helping people find their feet in a new land. As a daughter of migrant parents I know only too well that it can be very daunting to come to a new country and experience a language barrier, cultural barriers and discrimination. I have an incredible appreciation for the work Jeannie is doing at the centre. The building is magnificent; it is breathtaking. There is a huge auditorium that many community groups throughout the northern regions of Brisbane will be able to use. There are lecture rooms and a restaurant on site. I know that Jeannie will be a very valued contributor to the northern multicultural community and that many people in the areas in the north of Brisbane will support her in her endeavours. I want to wish her and her team all the very best. Her motto, 'Changing lives and changing destinies', could not be more apt.
Charlton Electorate: Domestic Violence
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (10:13): I would like to highlight the work of a very important group in the electorate of Charlton, and that is the Westlakes Domestic Violence Committee. This is a group of workers from government and non-government agencies in the Lake Macquarie area who are working together to support victims and those at risk of domestic violence in our community. They are people from parole groups, women's refuges and the like. I was very proud to join them last month for their second annual Reclaim the Night procession. With pride we marched through the main street of Toronto with a strong but peaceful message: that women and children should be able to feel safe wherever they are without the fear of violence of harassment. We were very proud to make a lot of noise on that night. The women I met there that night were truly inspirational. I was moved by their stories and grateful to be part of this empowering event. I particularly recall a story told by a lady named Jenny, a survivor of domestic violence. She shared with us that night a poem that she wrote about a personal experience of being in a violent relationship for 20 years. It was a very moving poem. It was so brave of her to share her story with a large crowd. I know that it will help others.
The unfortunate fact is that domestic violence is happening behind the doors of far too many homes. We are all responsible for speaking out and condemning it. White Ribbon Day is a major international event, and I applaud the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition yesterday regarding it. The Westlakes Domestic Violence Committee will join in, using the occasion to kick off a 16-day campaign of activism against this crime in our local area. This campaign, which runs until 10 December—Human Rights Day—is an opportunity to better inform victims of domestic violence, and the broader community, that support is available, as well as informing us all about action that we can take to prevent domestic violence. Indeed, an important part of their work is the programs they run at local schools which teach older students the signs of domestic violence and give them the courage to speak up when they know someone is using domestic violence against a woman. On Monday, the committee held a White Ribbon Day morning tea at Toronto, which I am told was very well attended. I was disappointed not to attend personally, but I was very pleased to hear that 24 men there took the pledge to never commit domestic violence against women and to speak up against any violence they witness. This public display is so important in stamping out domestic violence. As the father of a daughter, I applaud these men for taking the public pledge, and for bringing us a step closer to a world where women can live without fear. I thank the Westlakes Domestic Violence Committee for the important work they are doing in the local area.
Deputy Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to take the pledge here today: I swear never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. That is my oath.
Casey Electorate: Relay for Life
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (10:16): This morning I want to recognise and thank all of the participants in the Yarra Ranges Relay For Life who walked and ran around the Don Road football facility a couple of weekends ago. As we know, the Relay For Life—which is held in all of our electorates right across Australia—is a time for people to come together to remember and reflect on friends, relatives and loved ones who have suffered or may be suffering from cancer. It is a time to raise much needed funds but also a time to raise awareness. The Relay for Life started late in the afternoon and ran for 18 hours through until the Sunday morning and saw many teams from the Yarra Ranges and from across the federal electorate of Casey turn up, participate and raise much-needed funds and awareness. This is the 10th year of the Relay For Life in the Yarra Ranges, held at Healesville. Last year, it raised $95,000. So far this year it has raised more than $65,000 and donations are still rolling in, with the period open for donations running until mid-December. I want to pay tribute to the organising committee, who did a fantastic job; to each of the team leaders; and to all of the participants, who took time out to make their contribution.
One of the many teams was Team Thomas, named for Wayne Thomas who is part of a well-known community in Warburton. They are a great family; they are a family I have got to know very well over the years. Wayne was diagnosed with a brain tumour in June of this year. He has undergone surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy. His future daughter-in-law, Rebecca Cluning, and his son, Michael, took it upon themselves to organise Team Thomas. It included the entire family—43 people—who signed up, from grandparents Keith and Edna in their 80s right through to the youngest, 10-month-old Savannah and three-year-olds, Heidi and Mitchell. Team Thomas did a great job: they set out to raise $5,000, and so far they have raised more than $12,000.
Ballarat Electorate: Tourism Industry Regional Development Fund
Ms KING (Ballarat) (10:19): I want to raise this morning the decision by the Abbott government to axe the Tourism Industry Regional Development Fund. This program offered dollar-for-dollar matched funding of between $50,000 and $250,000 to assist tourism operators to increase the quality and range of visitor experiences in regional Australia. Funding of $9.6 million was available in the current round of the program, which closed to applications just at the beginning of August. Yet this week the department has contacted applicants to advise that round 2 of the program has been cancelled. Despite the fact that many of these applicants have spent a lot of money and a lot of hours to put those applications together, the government has axed them. This comes on the back of them nearly axing round 1, which was previously committed and announced by the previous government, but, thanks to lobbying by organisations like the iconic Sovereign Hill in my electorate, the government has seen sense and has gone ahead with those grants.
The axing of round 2 has some very significant implications for regional tourism and for regional communities. These grants offer unique opportunities for rural and regional tourism operators to improve the quality of their tourism products and to increase the numbers of visitors to their regions. We have seen under previous rounds of both this and the TQUAL grants funding go to Sovereign Hill to upgrade their conference facilities and to provide all-abilities access at their accommodation facilities. Kryal Castle again is providing a fantastic experience for young people and families who want to experience a dragons and dungeons culture. Small children just love being able to dress up as knights and princesses. Creswick Woollen Mills again is an iconic tourism infrastructure.
One of the projects that had applied under round 2 is a fantastic couple who run Peppers Retreat in Hepburn Springs. They have invested millions of dollars into that facility and in fact have been really responsible for increasing tourism numbers in Hepburn. Their second project, the Clunes Club Hotel, has been sitting vacant for 12 years in the heart of a small town that has enormous tourism potential. They wanted to apply for a grant that would have allowed them to leverage off that to get finance in order to redevelop the hotel into an accommodation facility. They have now been denied that opportunity. The people of Clunes are absolutely devastated by this. We have been waiting for years to have someone invest in that facility. The fact that the government has cancelled this round—'We'll have something else to replace it eventually'—is an absolute slap in the face to regional communities. It stalls economic development in regional communities when you do not have a pipeline of projects. What this government has done is disgraceful in not supporting regional communities and slowing growth in our economies.
Riverina Electorate: Backyard Ashes
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (10:23): The Ashes start tomorrow—good luck to Michael Clarke and his men. We have all played backyard cricket. Backyard cricket for generations has united and has divided friends, families and neighbourhoods. It is this quintessential Australian pastime which has been made into a feature length film in the Riverina city of Wagga Wagga. Backyard Ashes traces the story of two neighbours, Dougie Waters, an Aussie factory worker, and his pompous British neighbour Edward Lords, who is the boss of the local factory and nextdoor neighbour. Following a great shot by one of the Dougie's guests during a game of backyard cricket, Edward's prize cat, Dexter, falls into the roaring barbecue and is instantly incinerated, leaving only ashes. This is a movie about a tabby, not tubby—Tubby is another Wagga Wagga cricketing icon, Mark Taylor. Dougie's son, played by Leeton man and Home and Away star Jake Speer, captures this incident of the cat on his camera, uploads it to the internet and it goes viral. It is then decided that the two, who are cricketing enthusiasts, should settle the altercation with a game of backyard Ashes, with the winner to keep the ashes of the prize-winning cat.
This hilarious film has a star-studded lineup, including John Wood of Blue Heelers fame, Andrew S Gilbert from Round the Twist, Felix Williamson of Underbelly, Rebecca Massey from Packed to the Rafters and comedian Damian Callinan. It also has a host of local talent doing cameos, including Lex Marinos, Jamie Way, Adam Drummond, Tim Kurylowicz, Grant Luhrs, Stephen Holt, the late Genelle Mullins and Doug Hogan, with voice-overs by Duncan Potts and Chris Coleman. It has a couple of local TV journos in it, Sarah Burnell and Julieanne Horsman. It has a great cast. There is the Kildare drama teacher Michael Mack, who is a great left-arm fast bowler. I remember him playing with my great club, St Michael's.
The film made its world premiere on 6 November at Wagga's Forum 6 cinema, with a green carpet! All the cast, crew and more than 700 guests were there. I congratulate CrowCrow Productions. This morning I spoke to Wagga Wagga director Mark Grentell. He is very enthusiastic about the film. He said: 'We're 100 not out. We've got $100,000 so far. It's playing in all the regional theatres.' Peter Cox and producer Anne Robinson and the cast and crew also need credit for this magnificent, funny film. It is all about a game of backyard cricket in the iconic community of Wagga Wagga, which is also home to 'Tubby' Taylor, Geoff Lawson, Michael Slater and others.
The film is showing at Wagga Wagga, Albury, Orange and Tamworth. It is well worth a watch. When it comes to a cinema near you this summer, go and see it; it would be unAustralian not to do so. It deserves every success. It was filmed in the Gurwood Street backyard of Mark Grentell's grandad, the late Jack Misson, who was a Wagga Wagga cricket-umpiring icon, and Jack's wife, Judy. The film deserves every success. Dale Allison, who has been entertaining in the Riverina for decades, has just landed his first record contract following his sensational underscore. I recommend Backyard Ashes to you. Get to a cinema and have a look at it.
Scullin Electorate: National Broadband Network
Mr GILES (Scullin) (10:26): I speak today about the rollout of the National Broadband Network in the electorate of Scullin. To date, the rollout of the Labor's NBN has been a great success in areas such as Mill Park and South Morang. Just one example of the rollout of Labor's fibre-to-the-premises NBN can be seen with a small, family operated business. I am a little disappointed that the Minister for Small Business is no longer here, because this is a story which speaks volumes to the impact of Labor's fiber-to-the-premises NBN in communities such as the ones that I represent and the ones, indeed, that he represents.
The family operated business, 'Bike n' Bean', sells bicycles, bicycle related clothing and coffee in South Morang. The coffee is particularly good for anyone near Plenty Road. Prior to the NBN, this business was suffering under the coalition's copper wire internet. The business owners, a wife and husband, tell me they would spend three hours uploading photos of the latest range of bicycles and bicycle related clothing. This, coupled with continual line drop-outs, meant they were wasting time uploading images and trying to reconnect to the internet, instead of serving their customers. The owners resorted to uploading images at night, trying to avoid the daytime congestion of the internet spectrum. However, as upload speeds were still so slow, this ate into time that the owners spent with their two young children.
Labor's fibre-to-the-premises NBN has allowed this business to operate efficiently and the family to enjoy family time. It has improved productivity—something which we hear much about but do not see much of in this government so far—by freeing up the operators to spend more time serving their customers, attending other aspects of their business and, as I have touched upon, being with their family life.
Labor's fibre-to-the-home NBN is crucial to this small business. That is why I was so disturbed the other day to observe that 2,400 premises in South Morang have been removed from the fibre-to-the-premises rollout of the NBN. Residents and businesses in South Morang will be left with one of two choices: battle on using outdated copper or fork out up to $5,000 to have fibre connected to their home or business premise. Our community was looking forward to the benefits and opportunities that affordable, high-speed fibre broadband would bring to the area, but the Abbott government has taken this away. Residents and businesses in South Morang are the first victims of the Liberal cuts to the National Broadband Network. This government should be ramping up the rollout of the NBN, not slowing it down indefinitely.
Banks Electorate: Community Events
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (10:28): Today I would like to talk about a couple of community events which I recently attended in Banks and congratulate the organisers of those events, which were tremendous occasions.
The first was the Oatley Village Festival, which was held on 19 October. It was organised by the local Oatley Lions Club and in particular Bryan Pirie, who was the main organiser of the event. The festival has been running since 1997 and, like many Lions events around the country, it does a tremendous job in raising much needed funds for important community groups.
More than 15,000 people attended the festival, and I was pleased to be able to say a few words on the day. More than $30,000 was raised for the St Joseph's Primary School in Oatley to provide support for children with autism. Some funds were also provided to St John Ambulance and the Kogarah Fire Brigade of the State Emergency Services.
It was a terrific day, with fantastic weather. There were about 200 different stalls, all representing different parts of the Oatley community. It was great to see our local community radio station 2NBC there, broadcasting the proceedings. They do a fantastic job in the St George district of Sydney, bringing to life our community and many of the great events that take place in it. Next year's event is on 18 October, and we are very much looking forward to it after the success of this year's event.
I would also like to congratulate the organisers of the Padstow on Parade festival, which was held on 27 October. This was organised by the Rotary Club of Padstow. There was lots of great entertainment, with street stalls, roaming kids and entertainers. Also, the SES and the fire services were there for kids to find out more about how these important community services work for all of us. It was great to see the support from local community newspapers, the police and the Bankstown City Council, which was also involved in the day. It was also terrific to see the Rotary Club of Padstow putting on the Padstow on Parade for the first time in three years. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, these sorts of community events are not easy to organise. An enormous amount of work goes into putting them together. So I really want to congratulate the Rotary Club and particularly Keith Roffey on their tremendous efforts.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 10:32