2011-05-26 43 1 3 House of Reps 0 0

Thursday, 26 May 2011

The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BUSINESS 4767 BUSINESS 09:01 The SPEAKER HH4 I remind members that when they come into the chamber they should ensure their phones are set so that they will not disturb proceedings. This is one of the small gestures members could make to remind themselves that they are entering into the chamber of the House of Representatives. PRIVILEGE 4767 PRIVILEGE 09:02 The SPEAKER HH4 On Monday the member for Dickson raised as a matter of privilege whether the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing had deliberately misled the House in responding to a question from the member for Banks on 12 May 2011. The member for Dickson provided the Hansard of the minister's remarks and an extract from the budget related paper 'Delivering better hospitals, mental health and health services'. The member for Dickson submitted that the minister's statements that the two biggest injections of new money in the mental health package are in years one and two and that the new money in year five is just $50 million or about two per cent of the total package are contradicted by the budget's figures. Deliberately misleading the House is one of the matters that can be found to be a contempt. While claims that members have deliberately misled the House have been raised as matters of privilege or contempt, no such matter has yet been referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. To establish that contempt has been committed it would need to be established that: (1) a statement had in fact been misleading; (2) the member knew at the time the statement was incorrect; and (3) the misleading had been deliberate. In addition, to amount to contempt, the action would need to amount to, or be intended or likely to amount to, an improper interference with the free exercise by the House of its functions. I have examined the Hansard records on this exchange and the document presented by the honourable member for Dickson. The minister's answer can be regarded as debating contentions that have been made by the opposition about funding of mental health. While I note that this is by way of unnecessarily debating an answer, it is nevertheless a matter of a debating point, a dispute about the interpretation of data. I appreciate that there are different ways in which figures can be interpreted and used. Like Speakers before me, I believe that such differences as these are probably best pursued as debating issues using the various forms of the House available to members. For these reasons, on the evidence available to me, it is not clear that a prima facie case has been made such as would cause me to give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. BILLS 4767 BILLS Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011 4767

Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011

First Reading 4767 Second Reading 4767 09:05 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Organised crime affects all Australians. The Australian Crime Commission estimates that between $10-$15 billion dollars every year is lost as a result of organised crime. This is money that is being siphoned from legitimate Australian businesses; it is money that cannot be spent on education, health or any number of services. And in this way, organised crime steals from every Australian citizen every day. In an age where borders are increasingly permeable, effective and efficient international crime cooperation is increasingly important. The growing use of sophisticated technology by organised criminal groups means assets derived from criminal activities are often moved offshore to avoid detection and confiscation by local authorities. Organised criminals are motivated by greed—money is their lifeblood. If we can stop the money flow we can stop organised criminals in their tracks. The Gillard government has made combating organised crime a priority, and being able to confiscate assets and profits which are a result of crimes committed overseas is a key plank in this strategy. Legislative framework Australia has a strong framework for cooperating with foreign countries and restraining and confiscating benefits derived from foreign criminal offences where those assets are located in Australia. Part VI of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Mutual Assistance Act) enables an Australian court to register and enforce orders issued by a foreign court. These foreign orders include restraining, confiscation and pecuniary penalty orders over property derived from serious criminal offences. Once a foreign order is registered in Australia, it is able to be enforced as though it were an Australian order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act. Provisions in the International Criminal Court Act 2002 and the International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1995 expand upon the regime in the Mutual Assistance Act and allow an Australian court to register and enforce forfeiture orders issued by the International Criminal Court and specified international war crimes tribunals. A recent High Court decision regarding New South Wales proceeds of crime related provisions has highlighted the importance of ensuring that functions imposed onto a court properly reflect the nature of judicial functions under c hapter III of the Constitution. Specifically, the decision reinforced that courts must be allowed to exercise supervision over the making or enforcement of proceeds of crime orders. Amendments in bill To ensure the legislative framework providing a court with the power to register and enforce foreign orders continues to operate as intended, this bill will make minor but important amendments to the Mutual Assistance Act, the International Criminal Court Act and the International War Crimes Tribunal Act. The amendments to each of these a cts will provide a court with greater discretion when determining whether a foreign order should be registered and enforced in Australia and whether or not to hear an application for registration on an ex parte basis. The amended provisions will require a court to register a foreign order unless it considers it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. In determining whether registration of a foreign order is in the interests of justice, the court is to give due regard to the overarching purpose of the regime. Objects provision In order to clarify the purpose of this regime, the bill will also insert an object clause into subdivision A of part VI of the Mutual Assistance Act. The objective of the subdivision is to enable Australia to give effect to foreign orders in situations where property related to serious foreign offences is located in Australia. As reciprocity is the fundamental basis of international crime cooperation, it is vital that we are able to provide the same level of assistance to other countries as we would expect of them. Conclusion Where a person has committed a serious offence in a foreign country, and proceeds from that offence are located within Australia, it is important that Australia is able to enforce foreign orders. Australia must not be seen as a safe haven for criminals and their ill-gotten gains. These amendments will ensure that the legislative framework continues to operate as intended and that Australia can register foreign proceeds of crime orders in an effective and timely fashion. I commend this b ill to the House. Debate adjourned. Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011 4769

Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011

First Reading 4769 Second Reading 4769 09:11 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Australian government is committed to transforming the scale, potential and quality of higher education in Australia. When we came to office in 2007, we understood very clearly the transformative potential of higher education. We understood that new investment and reform was required to allow our nation's universities to meet the increasing demand for higher qualifications from students and employers, to meet our nation's future workforce needs. In 2008, the government commissioned a wide-ranging review of Australian higher education, known as the Bradley review. This review was the catalyst for the major package of reforms 'Transforming Australia's Higher Education System', announced in the 2009-10 budget. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011, which I am introducing today, will implement more of the reforms announced in that package. Fundamental to the government's reforms has been the understanding that the Australian economy today—and the Australian economy of the future—will require more Australians to be degree qualified. The demand for ever more sophisticated goods and services will require higher levels of innovation and skills in our workforce. In Australia today, the demand for professionals, managers, and community and personnel services workers is outstripping demand for clerical workers and labourers. More professionally qualified people, engineers and managers will be needed by 2015. We will need them in the healthcare sector. We will need them in the mining sector. We will need them to respond to future challenges that arise across the breadth of the Australian economy. This is why the government has made a commitment to the expansion of a high-quality university sector to educate the graduates needed by an economy based on knowledge, skills and innovation. This approach is essential if Australia is to participate fully in and benefit from the global knowledge economy. The government has set an ambitious goal for national attainment. It is seeking to increase the proportion of 25- to 34-year-old Australians with a qualification at bachelor level or above to 40 per cent by 2025. This was one of the major reasons the government committed to demand-driven funding for undergraduate student places at public universities. We are committed to funding growth in undergraduate student places and to opening the doors of higher education to a new generation of Australians. The bill being introduced today gives effect to that commitment. The bill reforms the Commonwealth Grant Scheme which provides the Australian government's financial contribution to a student's place at university. Australian universities will no longer be asked by the government to ration Commonwealth supported student places among students competing to get a bachelor degree. The government will make its financial contribution to the cost of educating all students admitted to undergraduate courses of study. The government will no longer set the number of undergraduate places that a university can offer. From 1 January 2012, universities will have greater flexibility to respond to student demand, and employer and industry needs. The Commonwealth Grant Scheme is to be changed so that universities will be funded, not on the number of places which the education minister decides they will be given, but based on the number of places they provide. The legislated cap on the Commonwealth Grant Scheme is being removed by the bill. By 2012, the government will have increased higher education expenditure on teaching and learning by 30 per cent in real terms since 2007. This year, the government will fund more than 480,000 undergraduate places at public universities. With an anticipated four per cent growth, next year this will rise to over half a million places—a 20 per cent increase since 2008. To fund this historic expansion of opportunity, the government provided an additional $1.2 billion in this year's budget, bringing the total demand driven funding to $3.97 billion over successive budgets. The government recognises that it will continue to have a role in the national oversight of our higher education sector. It will retain some powers to assist achievement of those outcomes and to enable it to respond to national imperatives. Higher education providers will continue to be required to have a funding agreement with the Commonwealth in order to be eligible to receive Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding. The bill amends some provisions relating to these funding agreements. The most significant of these amendments relate to the specification of maximum basic grant amounts. These changes are required by the change to the method of calculating the amount of grant a university will receive under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. In addition, there may be circumstances in which the Australian government needs to limit the extent of future growth in unallocated undergraduate places. The minister will be able to do this by specifying a maximum basic grant amount for these places in a university's funding agreement. Significantly, the minister will not be able to specify an amount that would reduce the funding for undergraduate student places that a university receives from one year to the next. The government will not be specifying any maximum basic grant amount for unallocated undergraduate places in any funding agreement for 2012. It also does not plan to do so in future years, but the government does wish to ensure that growth in undergraduate courses is sustainable, does not involve excessive risk and that the government's fiscal position is properly managed. The government is not uncapping funding for student places in postgraduate and medical courses. It will continue to allocate Commonwealth supported places in these areas. The government will be maintaining each university's current target for postgraduate student places in 2012. It will also be ensuring that postgraduate student places that have been provided within the existing allowance for overenrolment continue to be funded. The bill provides that the government can specify in a university's funding agreement a maximum basic grant amount for allocated places that is higher than the amount for the university's target load. The government's forward estimates of expenditure provide sufficient funding to ensure that there is no contraction in the level of Commonwealth supported postgraduate student places. It will be working with the sector to establish a framework for funding postgraduate places into the future. The outcomes of the base funding review will also be taken into account when considering future arrangements in the postgraduate coursework area. In recent years, there has been a major expansion in the number of medical schools. The number of domestic medical graduates is projected to rise from around 1,900 to over 3,100—an increase of over 60 per cent. This has placed significant pressure on the availability of clinical training places and internship opportunities. These are vital to maintaining the quality of graduating doctors. For these reasons, the government will not be removing the controls on student medical places at this time. The government will be monitoring demand and supply for graduates in all disciplines in the early years of implementation of the new funding system. The bill ensures that the government has the capacity to respond to any new skill shortages and, if necessary, to the oversupply of graduates in particular areas. Amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 will ensure that the government retains powers to allocate places for particular disciplines. The bill allows the minister to declare a course of study to be a designated course of study. This will provide the minister with the capacity to allocate places for those particular courses. The bill provides that such a declaration must be tabled in both houses of parliament and is a disallowable instrument. The government believes that the measures contained in this bill for demand driven funding of undergraduate places provide for much needed investment in higher education. As a result of these reforms, universities will be able to grow with confidence and diversify in response to student needs. Consistent with the shift to a demand driven funding system, the government agreed in its response to the Bradley review that the student learning entitlement (SLE) provisions of the act would be abolished from 2012. The SLE currently limits a person's ability to study at university as a Commonwealth supported student to the equivalent of seven years full-time study, subject to exceptions specified in the act which allow for further periods of 'additional' SLE and 'lifelong' SLE to be allocated. Application of the SLE has resulted in instances of hardship for particular students—for example, where a student who completes a three-year undergraduate science degree subsequently goes on to re-enrol in a six-year medical degree. In cases such as these, students can exceed their SLE and no longer be eligible for a Commonwealth supported place. The bill repeals part 3-1 of the Higher Education Support Act and amends other provisions of the act to remove the SLE and its role in the various funding schemes under the act. The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to require that each Table A and Table B higher education provider enters into a mission based compact with the Commonwealth. Compacts will provide for Commonwealth oversight of the teaching and research missions of the universities. Mission based compacts provide an important process of dialogue and communication between universities and the government. Compacts provide assurance concerning the alignment of university missions with the Commonwealth's national goals in the areas of teaching, research, research training and innovation. They do so in a way that recognises that the objectives of government and universities are often shared. In preparing compacts for the 2011-2013 period, the government has been made aware of universities' growth strategies, their intentions for maintaining the quality both of teaching and the student experience, and their contributions to the government's attainment targets. As a consequence, the government is better informed about the future research directions of universities, their strategies to advance innovation and of their efforts to train Australia's research workforce. The Australian government will continue to work cooperatively with higher education providers through compacts to ensure that individual university missions serve Australia well in teaching, research, research training and innovation. It will continue to monitor developments, progress and achievement across the sector. The bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act to promote free intellectual inquiry. Free intellectual inquiry is an important principle underpinning the provision of higher education in Australia. It is one that the government has committed to include in the act. Free intellectual inquiry will become an object of the act. The government's funding arrangements should not be used to impede free intellectual inquiry. Table A and Table B providers will be required to have policies that uphold free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching and research. This will be a new condition of funding. Most universities already have such policies and I know they all wish to support research and teaching environments which promote free intellectual inquiry. It is fundamental to the scientific method and rigorous scholarship. It is necessary to enable evidence to be challenged, competing theories to be debated and facts to be established. It provides the foundation for our understanding of the world and the accumulation of knowledge. This bill reflects the government's continued commitment to invest in Australia's universities and to expanding opportunities for Australians to obtain a higher education degree. As a consequence of this bill and our investment in higher education, more Australians will have the opportunity to gain a university education. In this next generation of students, there will be many people who will be the first in their family to embrace the opportunities that a university education can offer, with the promise of a high skilled, high paid job when they graduate. Our industries will get the university educated workforce they need. Our regional communities and industries will share in the benefits. Australia will have a growing and sustainable higher education system which meets the needs of our nation. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.   Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011 4773

Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011

First Reading 4773 Second Reading 4773 09:26 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011 makes amendments to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. The bill amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to extend the existing funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements, for the 2013 calendar year. The government is conducting a review of funding for schooling due to report in 2011. While the review is focused on the mainstream, there may be implications for the design and operation of the closely complementary programs run under the act. This extension will allow sufficient time for the government to implement any changes arising from the review, whilst also meeting its responsibilities around proper planning, engagement, consultation and change management with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, communities and funded organisations. The bill confirms the Australian government's commitment to review all funding arrangements for schooling, including in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education-focused programs which are run under the act. The Australian government is committed to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. This extension will facilitate consideration of the findings of the review and the best way to utilise the funding under the act to support improved educational achievement for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The bill will also formalise a number of previous decisions of government in relation to the mechanisms for the delivery of a number of initiatives related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education. At the commencement of Reconciliation Week, I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011 4774

Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011

First Reading 4774 Second Reading 4774 09:29 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The government's Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011 represents the first stage of the income support payment reforms contained in the Building Australia's Future Workforce package. This package will provide greater incentives for parents to engage in the workforce, reduce their dependency on welfare and will provide families with a greater measure of financial security. Joblessness among families represents one of the most immediate challenges facing Australia as an inclusive society. In a time of increasing national wealth, many Australian families risk being left behind and many Australian children are in danger of missing out on the opportunities that a dynamic and growing society has to offer. Evidence indicates that joblessness is closely linked with higher rates of poverty, lower achievement in education and training, and poorer health outcomes for both parents and their children. Families in which neither parent works, or in which single parents rely on welfare payments as their sole source of income, can produce entrenched problems leading to intergenerational disadvantage. This is especially a concern for single parent families, who constitute 70 per cent of the total number of jobless families in Australia. In order to break the cycle of joblessness and welfare dependence, the government is enacting a range of measures to help parents address the barriers which prevent them and their children from taking advantage of the opportunities which Australian society has to offer. To this end, the government is introducing changes to parenting payment and Newstart allowance for single principal carer parents that will provide greater incentive for single parents to engage in paid work, to reduce their reliance on welfare and to promote self-sufficiency. This will in turn serve to provide positive role models for the children of income support recipients and help reduce the chance of welfare dependence passing onto their children. Under the Building Australia's Future Workforce reforms, single principal carer parents on Newstart allowance will be able to retain more of their income support as their employment income rises. This will mean that single-parent families will be able to earn almost $400 extra per fortnight before they lose eligibility for Newstart allowance. This provides a strong incentive for single parents to undertake or increase their hours of work, and allows their family to see the immediate benefit of their labour. These changes further build upon the government's more flexible participation requirements for parents reforms that were introduced in July 2010 which allowed parents greater flexibility in engaging in meaningful participation whilst balancing their parenting responsibilities. As part of the broader changes to parenting payment, in this bill the government is taking a positive step towards reducing the inequity that exists between different parenting payment recipients based upon when they first applied for payment. This inequity is a legacy of the 2006 Welfare to Work reforms of a previous government. In July 2006, the parenting payment provisions in the Social Security Act were amended such that a person who claims parenting payment from 1 July 2006 can only qualify for parenting payment until their youngest child turned eight (if they are single) or six (if they are a member of a couple). Prior to July 2006, a person could qualify for parenting payment until their youngest dependent child turned 16. However, people who were in receipt of parenting payment immediately before 1 July 2006 were allowed to remain under the previous rules. These 'grandfathered' recipients can continue to qualify for parenting payment until their youngest child turns 16. A full eight years longer than new recipients if they are single or 10 years longer if they are partnered. In order to achieve more equitable and consistent eligibility rules for parenting payment, this bill will amend the Social Security Act so that only children who were born to or came into the principal care of their parent before 1 July 2011 will count towards the grandfathered status of the parenting payment recipient. This change will limit the ability of parenting payment recipients to extend their grandfathered status and will ensure that all parenting payment recipients will be treated equally in a shorter time frame than would otherwise have been the case. This bill is just the first step towards creating more equitable treatment for parenting payment recipients. Further changes will take effect from 1 January 2013 and will be included in a separate bill which will be introduced later this year. Overall, these changes will form an important element of the income support reforms that the government is undertaking as part of the Building Australia's Future Workforce package. These reforms will encourage more parents to participate in and share in the benefits of paid work, will provide better support and assistance to parents, and are an important step to making the system fairer. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Financial Viability) Bill 2011 4775

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Financial Viability) Bill 2011

First Reading 4775 Second Reading 4775 09:36 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I am introducing a bill to the House that builds on the government's commitment to better ensure the financial viability of the child care sector. Members will recall the overnight collapse of ABC Learning in 2008—a collapse that was simply unprecedented in this country. It was a collapse made possible by the fact that the former coalition government allowed ABC Learning to continue to expand virtually unchecked and unhindered. As a result, with virtually no notice, almost 100,000 families across the nation were left wondering what they were going to do the next morning. Tens of thousands of confused parents did not know if they would be able to go to work or to study the next day. Sixteen thousand child care workers did not know if they still had a job to go to. When a child care provider as large as ABC collapses, the consequences for both families and staff are severe. If it had not been for the Australian Labor government's quick and decisive action in 2008, when we stepped in to stabilise the sector and keep ABC's doors open for families while future arrangements were made—these families, children and workers would have been left in the cold. Instead 90 per cent of these centres continue to operate for Australian families today. But this government also pledged that we would never let this happen again. Following that catastrophic collapse the Australian government committed to strengthen stability in the child care industry so that parents' could be confident that their care arrangements would be there to support them when they need it. We have introduced a range of new measures to better ensure the financial viability of child care providers. We are: more closely scrutinising the financial background and key personnel of child care providers when granting approval to operate a child care service; and requiring operators to give the Department 42 days notice of their intention to close. Furthermore through legislation that is currently before the Senate, we will: enhance the government's ability to deal with 'pheonixing'—where an operator who accumulates debts, exits and then re-enters the market under a restructured company; and strengthen the secretary's powers to refuse applicants who are not fit and proper persons to operate child care services. The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Financial Viability) Bill 2011 builds on these reforms. The amendments in the bill broaden the powers of the secretary of the department to request detailed financial information about large, long-day-care providers and use this information to assess their financial viability on an ongoing basis. It will also deliver greater audit powers to the Australian government where we have serious concerns about a provider's financial health. This means that for the first time large, long-day-care providers will be required to demonstrate that they are financially viable as a condition of receiving government funding. These providers will also be required to continually demonstrate their financial viability each year in order to receive government funding. This will establish an 'early warning' system, so that the Australian government can anticipate and respond to a potential collapse of a major child care provider. Our focus on large, long-day-care providers in this bill is in recognition of the widespread impact a collapse of such a provider—like ABC Learning—can have on families, children and child care workers. The Australian government recognises that child care is an essential enabler of workforce participation, most particularly for Australian women. At a time when employers are crying out for workers then it is essential that we are supporting parents who want to return to work to be able to participate confidently. Parents need to have trust that when they drop their child off in the morning that their child is in quality child care. Importantly, they also need to know that when they drop their child off at care, someone will be there to meet them each and every day. I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 4) Bill 2011 4777

Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 4) Bill 2011

First Reading 4777 Second Reading 4777 09:41 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws. Schedule 1 reduces the quarterly income tax instalments for the 2011-12 income year for those taxpayers whose instalments are adjusted for previous years' gross domestic product growth. This is referred to as the GDP adjustment method of working out instalment amounts. The great majority of taxpayers required to pay quarterly instalments use this method, including most small businesses and individual investors such as self-funded retirees. These amendments reduce the GDP adjustment factor for the 2011-12 income year from the default, which would be eight per cent, to four per cent. This delivers small businesses and the other taxpayers using the GDP adjustment method a $700 million cash flow benefit in the 2011-12 income year. This provides eligible taxpayers with a smoother transition from the two per cent GDP adjustment factor that the government applied for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 income years as the economy recovered from the global financial crisis. This measure is part of the government's package of measures to improve the cash flow of small businesses and simplify their tax affairs. Those measures include the instant asset write-off for any asset costing less than $5,000, an immediate deduction of up to $5,000 for motor vehicles and reducing the small business company tax rate to 29 per cent. The government will have more to say on these measures when the legislation for them is introduced. Schedule 2 removes the ability of children under 18 years of age to use the low income tax offset to offset tax due on their unearned income, such as dividends, interest, rent, royalties and other income from property. The government has taken important steps to reduce taxes on low-income earners by doubling the low income tax offset from $750 to $1,500. This delivers a benefit to taxpayers earning up to $67,500. But increases in the low-income tax offset have doubled the amount of non-work income that can be allocated to children tax-free. There is evidence that 200,000 distributions from trusts have increased in line with the increased low-income tax offset, to take advantage of the opportunity to minimise tax by allocating income to children. The low-income tax offset was never meant to act as a tax minimisation vehicle. This measure reduces the incentive for families to split income with their children—protecting the integrity and improving the fairness of the income tax system. Children will still benefit from the full low-income tax offset for their income from working. Double orphans and children with disabilities will also be fully protected under this change. The government sees trusts as a legitimate business tool and remains committed to clarifying, updating and rewriting Australia's trust law. This will greatly assist the 660,000 trusts in Australia. Meanwhile, the Liberal-National coalition remain bitterly divided over the opposition's tax policy in relation to trusts, one minute they want to tax family, small business and farm trusts as companies, the next minute they have changed their mind and are arguing whether it was opposition policy in the first place. Mr Tony Smith 00APG Mr Deputy Speaker Murphy, I reluctantly point out to you that the Assistant Treasurer is completely out of order. If he wants to use the parliament to attack his opposite number or the opposition, there are forums where he can do that, but this is the introduction of a bill. He should know—and I will give him the benefit of the doubt for not knowing—that his remarks are to be confined entirely to the substance of the bill. I can anticipate what he is going to say, because he has circulated it. If the Assistant Treasurer did not know that, I give him the opportunity to simply stick to the substance of the bill. That is well known—you know that very well yourself, given your experience. I raise that point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83D The Assistant Treasurer has the call. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The government sees trusts as a legitimate business tool and remains committed to clarifying, updating and rewriting Australia's trust law. This will greatly assist the 660,000 trusts in Australia. The Gillard government has a clear tax framework that makes sure that taxpayers pay their fair share, increases national savings and retirement income and simplifies the tax system for Australians. We present a tax framework which is very important, and it is important that the opposition too responds to it and has a tax framework. Mr Pyne interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83D The member for Sturt will desist from interjecting. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG At least we are certain about what to do on trusts. Schedule 3 contains amendments to streamline the process for claiming tax deductions for the cost of total and permanent disability (TPD) insurance provided through superannuation. These amendments are designed to reduce costs for superannuation funds in complying with the law following the expiry of the current transitional relief which applies to these insurance policies. Superannuation funds commonly take out death and disability insurance to cover liabilities they may incur to their members. Disability insurance taken out by superannuation funds includes TPD insurance. The cost of TPD insurance provided through superannuation is deductible to the extent the policies provide cover which is consistent with the definition of 'disability superannuation benefit' in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Where broader insurance cover is provided, superannuation funds are required to obtain an actuary's certificate to determine the deductible portion of the premium. These amendments allow the percentage of certain TPD insurance premiums that is deductible to be specified in regulations. This will assist superannuation funds by avoiding the need to engage an actuary to determine the deductible portion of premiums in many cases. The regulations containing the prescribed percentages will be developed following consultation with industry. The government introduced transitional provisions in 2010 which were designed to allow time for the industry practice of deducting the full cost of broader disability insurance policies to be brought into alignment with the operation of the law. These transitional provisions expire on 30 June 2011. The amendments in this schedule extend this transitional relief to funds that self-insure their liability to provide disability benefits. This will provide equitable treatment between self-insured funds and premium-paying funds, and will avoid the need for self-insured funds to amend tax returns and obtain revised actuary's certificates where they have claimed deductions for broader disability insurance for the relevant income years. Schedule 4 introduces amendments to ensure additional employer contributions imposed by an industrial agreement, or the rules of a superannuation fund, will not be reportable employer superannuation contributions. Reportable employer superannuation contributions are contributions to superannuation above the minimum required by the superannuation guarantee that employees can influence, such as salary sacrifice and similar arrangements. Reportable employer superannuation contributions are counted as income when determining a person's eligibility for government financial assistance programs. Contributions mandated by an industrial agreement, or a superannuation fund cannot be controlled by employees, and cannot be accepted by employees as income or other benefit. These contributions should not be considered income when assessing a person's eligibility for government financial assistance. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Aged Care Amendment Bill 2011 4779

Aged Care Amendment Bill 2011

First Reading 4779 Second Reading 4779 09:49 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Australian government has a strong commitment to caring for our older Australians. In line with this commitment, the Gillard government will spend around $10.9 billion on aged care in the 2010-11 financial year. Moreover, the government is delivering on a range of significant aged-care reforms to enhance the delivery of recipient centred aged-care services. In tandem with these reforms, ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place to adequately protect older Australians living in residential aged care is of paramount importance to this government. The government takes this responsibility seriously and is committed to working with aged-care residents, and industry to identify areas where improvements can be made. In the 2010-11 federal budget, the government announced it would increase protection for accommodation bonds and strengthen complaints management in aged care as part of its commitment to providing better health and better care for older Australians through the national health reform agenda. I am pleased to be delivering on these promises today by introducing the Aged Care Amendment Bill 2011. Essentially, the amendments contained in the bill increase protection for residents in two ways: first, they strengthen protections for accommodation bonds held by providers of residential and flexible aged-care services and, second, they improve complaint management in aged care. In addition, the bill makes other minor amendments to remove redundant provisions relating to aged care which are no longer operational and can be misleading to aged-care providers. Protecting aged- care residents' savings Accommodation bonds were established to give approved providers a source of capital funding for investment in residential aged-care infrastructure. Accommodation bonds are essentially an interest free loan from the aged-care resident to an approved provider. The provider has the responsibility to repay the bond when the resident leaves the aged-care service. In the event that an approved provider goes into liquidation owing bond refunds, the Australian government makes those refunds through the Accommodation Bond Guarantee Scheme. Since the introduction of the Aged Care Act in 1997, there has been strong growth in the value of accommodation bonds held by the aged-care sector. As at 30 June 2010: approved providers held more than $10.6 billion in bonds on behalf of more than 63,000 aged-care residents; the average total bond holding held by an individual approved provider was $11.2 million; and the average new accommodation bond charged during the financial year was around $232,000. The total value of accommodation bonds held by approved providers has more than doubled since 2004-05—equating to an average increase of 20 per cent per annum. This is a significant amount of funds held by aged-care providers on behalf of their residents. And, as the Australian population continues to age and the demand for aged care increases, the funds loaned to approved providers through accommodation bonds will continue to grow. Given the significant funds loaned by residents to their approved providers, it is important that this money be directed to residential and flexible aged-care infrastructure and that there be robust accountability mechanisms in place to underpin confidence in the safety of residents' funds. To date, the majority of approved providers have effectively met their obligation to refund bonds to their residents. However, since the introduction of the Accommodation Bond Guarantee Scheme in May 2006, it has been activated on five occasions with around 150 accommodation bonds refunded at a cost of approximately $24.5 million to the taxpayer. This experience, together with that of the Department of Health and Ageing in undertaking prudential monitoring and compliance activity, has demonstrated that regulation of accommodation bonds could be further enhanced. In particular, there is a need to reinforce the role of bonds in financing capital investment in aged care. This bill provides greater clarity about the uses of accommodation bonds and strengthens the link to aged care. Specifically, the bill reinforces that bonds taken after 1 October 2011 should be used for capital expenditure at aged-care services, repaying debt associated with capital works and refunding existing bonds. The bill also makes it clear that accommodation bonds can be used for financial investment. For example, a number of approved providers invest bonds in term deposits prior to building a new facility. Importantly, the reforms are structured to ensure that crucial investment in aged-care infrastructure is maintained. A broad approach is taken to capital expenditure and includes costs for activities directly associated with capital expenditure. The design of the reforms also ensures that regulation does not unduly impact on effective corporate structuring and business arrangements. For many approved providers, the reforms are not expected to have a significant impact as they will already be using bonds for the permitted purposes. However, a two-year transition period will be implemented to ensure that those approved providers that need to make changes have sufficient time to act to meet the new requirements. Unfortunately, the risk that some entities may not act appropriately in dealing with accommodation bonds cannot be completely removed by regulation. Therefore, it is important to have strong incentives in place to discourage this type of behaviour. Under the new arrangements, offences will apply when misuse has been identified. New criminal offences will apply where an approved provider has used bonds for a non-permitted purpose, is insolvent and is unable to repay accommodation bonds when they fall due. In the very worst of cases, criminal offences will also apply to individuals within the organisation. Individual offences will only apply in circumstances where (a) the approved provider has used bonds for a non-permitted purpose, is insolvent and unable to repay accommodation bonds and (b) where an individual was complicit in this. For example, where the individual was a key personnel of the approved provider (that is, in a senior position), knew the bonds were being used for a non-permitted use and was in a position to take, but had not taken, reasonable steps to prevent the misuse. The introduction of offence provisions for the misuse of bonds demonstrates the government's commitment to addressing the serious moral culpability of those who choose to misuse bonds which are essentially loans to approved providers by people in vulnerable positions. Aged-care residents need to be confident that their funds are being used for the intended purposes, that there is transparency about that use, and that there is sound regulation in place to monitor and protect their savings. As I have mentioned, the focus of the enhanced protection for accommodation bonds is to reduce the risk that approved providers are unable to make refunds to residents. Given this emphasis, the bill removes the current restrictions on the use of the income derived from bonds and accommodation charges. Currently, these restrictions are more significant than those related to the actual bond itself, but by removing the restrictions this will free up these funds for use by approved providers, reduce regulatory burden and ensure that regulation better targets the area of greater risk. To support all of the new arrangements, the bill will also introduce information gathering powers in circumstances where, for example, concerns exist regarding the capacity of an approved provider to repay accommodation bonds. This will improve the capacity of the Department of Health and Ageing to actively manage or monitor risks as they emerge. Improving the handling of aged-care c omplaints The second key element of the bill relates to the management and resolution of complaints about aged-care services. The Aged Care Complaints Investigation Scheme (the scheme) provides a means through which concerns relating to the delivery of residential, community and flexible aged-care services subsidised by the government can be investigated. In July 2009, in response to industry and community concerns about the scheme's operation, an independent review to identify areas of improvement was completed. A key outcome of that review was the recommendation to increase the consumer focus of the scheme and to strengthen the focus on resolution of complaints rather than just investigation of complaints. While many of the review's recommendations have already been implemented administratively, amendments proposed through this bill will enable the implementation of the reforms to continue. To this end, the bill proposes to enable the 'investigation principles' to be replaced with new 'complaints principles. The proposed new complaints principles will describe the improved complaints scheme and will have a stronger focus on resolution of complaints. This will provide consumers with a more flexible scheme where a range of options are available for assisting to resolve a complaint, including: early resolution, conciliation and mediation. Other amendments Other amendments contained in the bill will make some minor, operational changes to remove redundant provisions relating to aged care, which have the potential currently to confuse the public. Timing Subject to the passage of the bill through parliament, it is proposed that the reforms relating to bonds take effect from 1 October 2011. A two-year transition period will be in place until the end of October 2013 to allow the sector time to become familiar with new requirements relating to the permitted uses for bonds. This will assist to ensure a smooth transition. Changes relating to complaints principles take effect on 1 September 2011. Minor amendments and removal of redundant provisions will take effect on royal assent. These changes have been the subject of consultation with the aged-care sector, the banking and finance industry and consumer representative groups. Their views have been instrumental in shaping these reforms. To ensure smooth implementation, the government will continue to work collaboratively with key stakeholders, providers and care recipients and their families, and obviously listen very closely to their views. Conclusion I am very pleased to introduce this bill. The amendments it contains ensure, as far as possible, that the financial interests of residents are protected, that effective regulatory safeguards are in place for accommodation bonds and that a regulated source of capital funding is provided for investment in aged-care infrastructure. This bill provides a regulatory framework that is commensurate to the risks associated with the strong growth of bond holdings in the aged-care sector, which is currently over $10 billion. It also provides for a shift in the way aged-care complaints are dealt with, from one of investigation to one of resolution, facilitating pragmatic, resident centred outcomes for all concerned parties. By doing so, this bill will help promote public confidence in the aged-care system. Debate adjourned. BUSINESS 4783 BUSINESS Rearrangement 4783 10:02 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following item of private Members' business being called on, and considered immediately: Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011—Order of the day No. 18. Very briefly, the Attorney-General will be commenting on behalf of the government on the constitutionality of this issue. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 There are a lot of bush lawyers on standing orders here. Mr Stephen Smith 5V5 I was making no contribution. The SPEAKER HH4 I thank the Minister for Defence. The question before the House is that the motion for the suspension of standing orders moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to. It is open to debate. If somebody seeks the call, they will be given the call or I will just put it to the vote. 10:03 Mr McCLELLAND JK6 Barton I submit that the motion moved by the Leader of the House for the suspension of standing and sessional orders should be agreed to, because there is an important constitutional issue to be considered in respect of this private member's bill. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, specifically that there is no proper basis for the bill to proceed once it is called on. There is no proper basis for it to proceed in the House of Representatives, having regard, first, to the requirements of section 56 of the Constitution and, second, to the fact that the bill could not properly have been introduced into the House in view of standing order 179(a). I addressed the first matter generally in a letter of advice to you, dated 16 February 2011, which you tabled on 21 February of this year. I will briefly revisit that constitutional issue before discussing the requirements of standing order 179. Essentially, under Australia's constitutional arrangements, the government of the day is responsible for the management of public revenue and the budget. Specifically, section 56 of the Constitution states that laws appropriating money shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has been recommended by message of the Governor-General. The Governor-General's message can be given only on the advice of the government of the day, and this procedure is reflected in standing order 180. House of Representatives Practice, fifth edition, 2005, at page 409, states that an appropriation bill includes a bill that would have the effect of increasing or extending the amount that may be paid out of the existing Consolidated Revenue Fund. In my letter of advice to you, I outlined the historical background of these provisions and referred to the previous advices provided by the then Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick. In particular, Sir Garfield was of the opinion that a bill appropriating money includes a bill that has the effect of liberalising the conditions under which the benefits are payable. I will shortly discuss why the subject bill would have that effect. Before I do so, however, I refer to the second issue to which I have referred—that is, the requirement of 179(a), which provides: Only a Minister may initiate a proposal to impose, increase, or decrease a tax or duty, or change the scope of any charge. The Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011, if brought on, would have the effect of both changing the scope of the charge and also introducing an appropriation. In particular, very briefly, I know that this bill proposes to abolish the age limit relating to the payment of superannuation contributions for employees. If the bill was passed, employers who did not make the superannuation contributions for employees aged over 70 would be liable— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! If members want to have a discussion across the table whilst the Attorney-General is on his feet they can do so elsewhere. Mr McCLELLAND JK6 I thank you for your courtesy, Mr Speaker, and trust it will be extended by my very noisy colleagues on both sides of the House. If the bill were passed, employers who did not make superannuation contributions for employees over 70 would be liable to pay a superannuation guarantee charge in respect to any shortfall under the act. The consequence of the bill would be that employers would be required to pay charges in cases where they are not currently required to do so. Standing order 179 would have been applied to introduce such a measure and this did not occur. The issue of appropriation also arises because, where the additional charge applies, the Commonwealth would be required to make a payment for the benefit of relevant employees and the Consolidated Revenue Fund would be accessed for that purpose. The proposed law would therefore also involve an appropriation within the meaning of section 56 of the Constitution and standing order 180. On that basis, to be validly passed, the bill requires a message from the Governor-General, which may be obtained only on the advice of the government, and the government does not propose to obtain a message in this case. I therefore support the motion that the bill be brought on and, once brought on, Mr Speaker, I would respectfully request of you that you rule that the bill should not proceed. 10:08 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Mackellar In rising to speak to the motion as to whether the bill should be brought on, I think that the points made by the Attorney-General need to be answered. Standing order 179 deals with a bill which deals with a tax matter. Clearly this bill does not deal with a tax matter and it is for that precise reason I did not include in the bill a provision that would enable any superannuation payments made to a person over the age of 75 to become a tax deduction. Instead, I am proposing to move that as an amendment to an existing government tax bill, as I am entitled to do, which would grant a tax deduction for that payment. As the law currently stands, when an employee turns 70, the employer may elect to pay or not pay the superannuation guarantee charge. I believe that to be ageist and sexist as well because it does apply very often to women in that context. But the ageism is very patent. The fact of the matter is that every employee in paid employment should be treated exactly the same and not be disadvantaged because of their age. As the law currently stands, when one turns 70, as I said, the employer does not need to pay the superannuation guarantee charge. If the employer elects to do so then it is a tax deduction up the age of 75. Thereafter, it is illegal to pay the superannuation guarantee charge and therefore there is no provision for it to be a tax deduction. My proposal is that the age limit of 75 be abolished on the basis that it is discrimination against people on the basis of age. This government are introducing a commissioner for ageist issues, so they are being hypocritical in the extreme in trying to vote down this bill. As I said, the question of tax deductibility for the very small number of people who presently are in that category of working over the age of 75 will be dealt with by amending one of the existing government tax bills. But now I go to the question of why the existing bill is not a tax bill. I will go to some advice which I have received from the Parliamentary Library. I will direct your attention to the questions that were dealt with in estimates. Nobody in the library is prepared to pay a registration fee for their practising certificate. Although they are qualified lawyers, they do not hold practising certificates and therefore they give advice on legal matters without determining it to be legal advice. I will read out the advice I was given. They were asked whether in their view this was an appropriation bill. The advice was given by Morag Donaldson from the library. She said: 'It does not appropriate revenue or money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government. It simply abolishes the age limit of 70 years from the calculation of the shortfall component which is used in assessing superannuation guarantee charge payable when an employer fails to make superannuation payments by repealing paragraph 27(1)(a) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.' This advice, like many legal authorities, says that the bill is not a tax bill. It does not change the scope or any charge. While the bill may have consequences for the revenue, it is only if the government is to pay moneys to meet the shortfall in superannuation payments. On the face of it, the bill does not impose, increase or decrease a tax or duty. It specifically says that, because the bill is not an appropriation, section 56 of the Australian Constitution does not apply. Just to remind people, section 56 says that a vote, resolution or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or money shall not be passed unless the proposed purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by a message from the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated. That has not occurred. To state again what this bill is about: it is a question of age discrimination. The law currently says that for someone between the age of 70 and 75 who is in the paid workforce their employer is not obliged to pay— Honourable members interjecting— Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Perhaps we could have a little attention. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! Those conferencing in the aisles will resume their seats. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 That does include the Leader of the House, who is lobbying instead of being a member. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The member for Mackellar has the call. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Thank you very much. I will simply say to the Independents on the cross bench, who have a very important decision to make on the question of ageism, that this bill is about precisely that. It is about abolishing a requirement in the law that disadvantages an employee on the basis of age. If it were a law that was disadvantaging an employee on the basis of race, I bet nobody would hesitate to vote for it. If it were a disadvantage on the basis of sex, I bet nobody would hesitate in voting for it. But because it is a disadvantage on the basis of age, the government is working overtime to persuade the members on the crossbench that they should be supported and that the crossbenchers should not support the bill to abolish this disadvantage to employees on the basis of age. I have said over and over again in this place that I want ageism to be considered just as offensive as sexism and racism. It is not reasonable, in a country that says it is inclusive and that it wants every individual to matter and be important, to have on our statute books a provision that disadvantages an employee just on the basis of that person's age. If the crossbenchers were to agree to the government's persuasions and knock it out, it would be a vote against people on the basis of age. I really do not think that as a group of people they would find that accepted. The government will try and the Attorney-General has tried to say it is a constitutional issue. Let me give you the background to the way the bill came forward. I asked the clerks to draft the bill. The clerks did draft the bill. It went into the process, under the new paradigm, of giving each member their right and entitlement to bring forward matters of importance to the people. Subsequent to the bill going into the process, I got a note from the Clerk's office that said, 'Some people have been asking: is this an appropriation bill?' On further investigation I was told it was the government that was asking—wanting to knock it out. So there was no problem when the bill was drafted; there was no problem when it went in. It all happened post facto. Suddenly, the government wanted to knock it out. I then went and sought other advice. When I was heavied by many people to try to amend my bill to say that it would only come into effect when the government introduced an appropriation bill, I refused to do so because that would have made the bill null and void—it would not come into effect. I was urged to do that as recently as today. I say to you, Mr Attorney-General, that if you feel so passionately about this issue then here is a proposition: let the bill have a second reading and, when we go to the consideration in detail, you move amendments and give an undertaking that you will bring in an appropriation bill to effect what I want to do and remove age discrimination. That would be a fair and reasonable way for you to proceed. But to try and knock the bill out on the basis of it being against the Constitution when it is giving every single Australian the right to be treated equally and not discriminated against on the basis of age, I find appalling. I find it appalling that someone for whom I have a good respect would want to argue in that way. So I say to you: I have given you a proposition; I have given you a way forward. You could give it a second reading. You could then move your amendments and give an undertaking that you would bring in an appropriation bill to give effect to my private member's bill and then agree to my subsequent amendment to the tax bill to grant the tax deductibility. That would give us a way forward and it would remove the age discrimination that is currently in our law and totally unacceptable. I go back to first principles. We have about 100 people in the Public Service who are over the age of 70, and my understanding is that the government, as the model employer, does not pay these people the superannuation guarantee. That is unforgivable. I say to you: if you accept what I put forward—that you give the bill a second reading, that you then move the amendment that it will only come into force when you bring in the appropriation bill and that you give an undertaking that it will do so, and that you will accept the amendment to allow tax deductibility for people over the age of 75 where the employer is then enabled to pay that superannuation guarantee charge—we would have a fair solution and a resolution which ought to satisfy your concerns. It certainly would satisfy mine, because it would be bringing justice to the people who are currently disadvantaged. That includes your own employees. Let me it say again: there are Public Service employees under this government right now and that is why it is important that we deal with this as a question of suspending the standing orders. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The member will make her remarks through the chair. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 I would be very interested to hear whether or not the Leader of the House or the Attorney-General will agree to the proposition that I have put forward. And if you do not agree to the proposition that we are putting forward then give us the reasons. Mr Turnbull 885 Robert spoke very broadly on this issue. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Robert spoke very broadly on this issue. I am only answering the points he raised. The SPEAKER HH4 The member will refer to members by their parliamentary titles. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 I will indeed. I apologise—the Attorney-General. Mr Albanese R36 You wouldn't know what he said. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Well you would not—you were having caucus up the back. You would not know what was said. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The member for Mackellar will ignore interjections. The member for Mackellar has the call. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. He is rather easy to ignore. The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Mackellar will refer to the motion. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 If I could just make that point again. There are currently employees of this government in the Public Service who are not being fairly remunerated because they are being discriminated against on the basis of age and are not being paid the superannuation guarantee charge. As the model employer, the government has an obligation to act like a model employer. Allowing this bill to go into effect, either by passing the bill and letting it become law now or by accepting the proposition that I have put to you, would mean that that discrimination will come to an end. If you insist on having this bill voted down— The SPEAKER HH4 The member will refer her remarks through the chair. Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP SE4 Through you, Mr Speaker, if the government simply wants to stonewall and not find a solution to this problem and its own proposition is that only changes should be made affecting people between the age of 70 and 75, it will do nothing about removing the absolute age discrimination of 75. If we are to be truly inclusive in this country, if the government establishing a commissioner against ageism is to have any meaning, then this bill needs to go forward. I say to the crossbenchers, to the people who are independent: you are at a critical time. You have the opportunity to say that you want ageism to be as unacceptable as sexism and racism. Then you have the opportunity to give this bill a second reading. In speaking on the suspension motion, we are at a crossroads as to whether or not the government is fair dinkum about wanting to end ageism. We on this side of the House certainly are. It is a strong and principled bill and I would seek the government to either allow it to pass or seek the solution to their difficulty as they see it that I have put forward. 10:22 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne In beginning to discuss the question before the House, which is a suspension motion, I do want to thank the members of the House who have participated in some lively discussions in the last 15 minutes, including the Manager of Opposition Business, the Leader of the House, the Speaker himself and the various clerks and my crossbench colleagues. For something that was so simple on the surface, this is proving to be a classic example of something that is layered with all sorts of challenges and considerations not only with regard to the question before the House and the following question, where we have a suspension motion to allow a private member to debate anything of their choice. That, I would hope, has the support of all members of this House, and I should not expect any division from any crossbench colleagues or anyone in this chamber. One of the parting comments of the previous speaker was asking for support from the crossbenchers to allow the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill to have a second reading. I think that is a no-brainer for the whole House. I would be very surprised if any member chose to vote against a private member's interests to bring forward something for consideration. It is the next question before the House, with regard to voting on the substance of the bill, where there are some more layers and challenges. I listened closely to the Attorney-General's advice and the advice from government, and it only further accentuates the point that we have an issue before this parliament that is unresolved and needs to be resolved. As was mentioned again by the previous speaker, we have competing advice from institutions within this parliament with regard to whether this is or is not either an appropriation bill or a tax bill. We need to sort out the question of what is or is not a money bill. We are here in this 43rd parliament for 2½ more years and we can expect many private members to bring forward all sorts of issues, as is their right in a parliament that is alive, and we need to resolve this question, particularly the boundaries and the grey areas of what is and what is not a money bill. This has obviously been a historical dispute between the two chambers of the parliament and it is proving itself now to be a weapon of politics in relation to activities within this chamber. It needs to be resolved. To emphasise the point, the member for Mackellar has brought forward the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011, as is her right. Yet, in seeking advice, we do get conflicting advice. The member for Mackellar I think somewhat unfairly verballed the clerks in accusing them of drafting the bill and then changing their mind. In defence of the clerks, they will draft anything that a member of parliament wants to bring into this chamber, as is their right. When asked for advice from not just the government but also people such as me, seeking to clarify questions of constitutionality and whether a bill is or is not a money bill, we were provided advice that we can only take on face value as objective and as advice from people working in the parliament's and the nation's best interests. The advice that they have provided is that this bill can be captured as a money bill. Their advice is in some areas worth reading into the record, with the indulgence of the House. There are several points in the advice received. The first is that there is a standing appropriation provision in the original act—the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992—that appropriates funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to make payments on behalf of employees to superannuation funds in the event that the employer does not meet their obligation under the act to pay the necessary superannuation contribution. If this happens, the Australian Taxation Office in turn issues the employer with a debt notice equivalent to the amount of superannuation guarantee payment. Thus it is reasonable to assume that the net effect on government's fiscal position is probably negligible. Nevertheless, technically the proposed bill, if enacted, could give rise to payments under the standing appropriation. Thus if it is not the eventual net position but rather the fact that payments would be made from the standing appropriation that matters, it could be argued that a Governor-General's message would be necessary to cover this eventuality. The second point relates to standing order 179, which provides: a. Only a Minister may initiate a proposal to impose, increase, or decrease a tax or duty, or change the scope of any charge. And there are some considerations in that regard that point towards this bill being within the scope of a money bill. The advice from the clerks also suggests that both these issues could be described as technical matters. However, they could give rise to a situation where there is a breach of the principle that the financial initiative rests with government if the need for an appropriation and the imposition of a charge arose as a consequence of the bill being enacted. In light of this, again the advice suggests that an amendment be moved in the consideration in detail stage of the bill that may address some of these issues. That is the advice, on the one hand, from the very good clerks of this chamber—who are apolitical, independent of thought and try to steer a path for legislation in the nation's interests. At the same time, advice has been provided from the Parliamentary Library. I gather that was sought by the member for Mackellar, and I thank her for that. That is conflicting advice indicating that, no, this is not an appropriation bill, because it does not directly appropriate revenue or money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government and nor is it a tax bill because it does not change the scope of any charge. I am happy to make those two pieces of conflicting advice available to the House or to any member of the chamber. The point is, we need to resolve this question of what is or is not a money bill before we get into the form and substance and issues around ageism and superannuation reform. They are all very noble causes, and I understand the government is looking to bring in substantial reform and I welcome and support that, and I also look forward to participating in debate around that soon. I also congratulate the member for Mackellar for identifying the issues in regard to ageism generally and the need for those in a workforce that is ageing to be able to receive the same rights and entitlements as anyone of any age in that workforce. Having said that, if we are going to get down to the form issues I think there is a cost to business that I would like to see some more details on. I would be happy to continue the conversation past today and, as well, I would hope that the member for Mackellar and the Assistant Treasurer, who is in the chamber and who I think has carriage of superannuation reform, could actually have a meeting of the minds sometime soon and see whether this issue can be plugged into the overall direction of superannuation reform that will be in place in the next six months, I hope. The way I read what is going to happen is that we will all support a suspension of standing orders and then we will be considering the substance of the bill. I will not be supporting the bill itself, because of the advice primarily from the clerks in this chamber. But I do flag that we are getting to the point where this is one of the last times this will happen unless we can resolve this issue of defining a money bill and defining clearly the relationship between the lower house and the upper house and then get a clear pathway on this important question. I think we will be starting to look for a test case if the government does not take this on as an issue of importance and substance. With people using this obvious opportunity as a weapon of politics, I am sure that this case will arise sometime soon. I would hope that, in good faith, the government does try to start a conversation with the other chamber, start a conversation with those who are wanting to get the right outcomes for parliamentary democracy, and then we can be making decisions not based on conflicting advice from various institutions all of whom work for this chamber. I will be supporting the suspension but not supporting the substance of the bill, and I hope this is an issue that can be taken on by this parliament in the broader sense about defining what is or is not a money bill. 10:34 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Let me make it clear for everyone, because this does seem to be turning into another one of those Thursday morning specials, that when the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill comes before the House in substance, whether that is now or at some later stage, I and the Greens will be opposing it. We will not be opposing it on the grounds that it is a money bill or an appropriations bill; we do not agree with that argument that has been put by the government. The grounds on which it will be opposed will be fleshed out later but, in short, we believe the government has available to it a better solution for tackling this issue. We are concerned about potential tax implications and implications for the revenue in passing the bill as it is and, like the member for Lyne, we would want more discussion about what potential cost implications for employers—and that is despite being sympathetic to the underlying principle of the bill. As far as the questions before the House today go, it is our understanding that, if there is support from the opposition for a suspension of the standing orders to allow a debate today, then that is the way we will vote as well. I notice that the bill is not listed on the Daily Program, so if it was the view of the private member proposing the bill that it was not scheduled to be voted on today then I believe, as a person who moves private member's bills, we have an interest in ensuring that the matter proceeds in an orderly fashion and that there is not the bringing on of votes in a way different from the expectations of those who brought the matter before the chamber. We will be wanting to make sure that there is proper opportunity for debate in accordance with the wishes of the mover of the bill but when it ultimately comes on we will not be supporting it—not because it is not a money bill, and we do not agree with that, but because we do not agree with the bill. 10:36 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison On 21 August last year the 150 members of this parliament were fairly elected. It is our responsibility to make this parliament work and to work well, and for it to be a place where good public policy can be developed and become law. But we do have eating at our work the lingering question over what exactly is a money bill. We are seeing that again this morning. The questions that are now arising consistently about what is or is not a money bill are breeding instability and uncertainty, and that is wrong. I do call on the government to look at this matter afresh and to put in place mechanisms or processes or definitions or whatever is needed for this uncertainty to be done away with. We had such uncertainty with the changes to the youth allowance, we have uncertainty with the superannuation charge and there is the possibility of uncertainty over increases to defence pensions, if that legislation does come down from the Senate. It has become a political weapon. It is not healthy and it is not in the public interest. I therefore call on the government to address this matter so we do not have this issue time and time again, and I call on the opposition to act responsibly in this matter and not look for areas of public policy where we brush up against this and create such instability. This parliament must last three years. We have all been elected to sit in this place for three years. It is arrogant for anyone in this place to think we have a right to destroy this parliament—to pull it down and to go to an early election. That would not be in the public interest. It is in the public interest to make this parliament work. On this specific bill, the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill, I applaud the member for Mackellar for her strident and ongoing efforts to end age discrimination in Australia. I think the fact that we currently have an age limit of 70—moving to 75, in fact, if a government initiative progresses—is still a form of age discrimination. I ask the government to look afresh at whether or not 75 is the right age for people to stop receiving mandatory employer superannuation payments. Personally, I see a case—and this will be something about which to lobby and perhaps to argue in this place in the future—for mandatory employer superannuation payments to not have an age limit; they should be paid indefinitely. We should encourage greater participation of older people in the workforce. In fact, we should celebrate it. There is no reason in my mind why someone who is competent at age 76 should not be a full and productive member of the workforce and their employer should not be expected to make employer superannuation payments. That is how I approach this. So I applaud the member for Mackellar for the work she is doing and that I hope she continues to do. There is, though, the obvious problem of lack of warning for business if such an initiative were implemented straight away. I think the government has the settings right when it says that business should be given a couple of years to prepare for changes to superannuation arrangements. But at the end of the day the reason I will not support this bill is the ambiguity of whether or not it is a money bill. I have now seen a number of pieces of advice which have given completely different perspectives on whether this is a money bill. At least one piece of advice I received contained within its judgment a certain amount of ambiguity still. Personally, where there is ambiguity about whether something is or is not a money bill I will default to inaction—to not progressing it—because I think that is in the public interest. To bring on a constitutional crisis would be the wrong thing to do. I do not want there to be a test case to resolve this. I want the government and the opposition to act responsibly and in the public interest to address this so we do not have to have a test case, and I do not want this to be the test case. 10:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I close the debate relating to the Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 and thank all those who have made a contribution to it. I particularly welcome the comments of the last speaker, the member for Denison, who outlined quite rightly that it is in the public interest for these issues to be resolved and for the parliament to serve its full term. I take some contention with the comments of the member for Lyne. This is not an issue of a dispute between the houses. The way we deal with bills that might come from the Senate to this House was a previous issue. This bill originated in this House. This is a bill that, according to the member for Mackellar's own statements, repeated a number of times during her contribution to this debate, has an impact on government revenues. The member for Mackellar outlined repeatedly that a number of employees of ministers—that is, public servants—would be impacted by this legislation. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 Every time they employ another 3,000 they have to pay. Mr ALBANESE R36 The member for Mackellar has herself outlined why this is a money bill. Money bills are specifically ruled out without an appropriation being recommended by a message from the Governor-General under section 56 of the Constitution and the procedure is reflected in standing order 180. This has applied regardless of who the government of the day is. Indeed, this is a procedure that protects the executive and protects the government in its ability to apply a budget. If this protection is not there, then there is no way that appropriate decisions that are fiscally responsible can be made because appropriations could be sought in isolation from the overall budget. This protection is needed if we are to have responsible economic policy in this nation. I say with respect to all the members who have contributed to this debate that we have resolved our position. Our position is that we support the Constitution of Australia. Our position is that the Constitution of Australia was written with a great deal of foresight and common sense. Common sense suggests that they actually got it right. So it is very clear that it is possible for the House to pass motions expressing a view about what should happen, but it is not possible to pass legislation that has an impact on the budget. That is absolutely critical to the stability that the member for Denison, the member for Lyne and others spoke about as being so necessary. We have had attempts that were not tried during the last parliament, attempts to bowl up legislation that might, in isolation, be viewed by some members as having merit. There are a range of things I would like to see revenues spent on, but I understand that, at the end of the day, you have expenditures and you have revenues and they relate to each other. And we have a commitment to return to surplus by 2012-13. So the position is very clear, I think. The government, in moving this resolution for the suspension of standing orders, gave full and proper notice. I know my office certainly advised the Manager of Opposition Business and the shadow minister, who is indeed here with full knowledge of what time this debate would take place today. So what has occurred is in accordance with the normal selection procedures. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 Are you saying the Manager of Opposition Business was not notified? Mr Pyne 9V5 I wasn't notified until this morning. Mr ALBANESE R36 This morning. That is what I said. Mr Pyne 9V5 You said last night. It is not in the blue. Mr ALBANESE R36 The position was clear. It was discussed at the Selection Committee again last night. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 We were told last night it wasn't coming on. Mr ALBANESE R36 By whom? That is not true. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 It is not in the Notice Paper. Mr ALBANESE R36 I identified it and we rang and gave notice this morning to the Manager of Opposition Business following very clear established process. The government supports the suspension. The government does not, however, support this bill being able to proceed. I understand, Mr Speaker, that you wish to consider the matter, but I respectfully submit, in support of the Attorney-General's submission on this matter, that these are indeed critical issues for the appropriate operation of the budget. I commend the resolution to the House. Question agreed to. 10:47 The SPEAKER HH4 Before I call on the order of the day, I would like to say that I have appreciated the debate. It was not a debate on a suspension that we would describe as normal, but I think the matters before us are very important. I assure the House that I will decouple the substantive matter before the House from the procedural matters and I will look at those procedural matters because they are of great moment. They are very important matters, a fact which has been acknowledged, I think, by participants in the debate on the suspension. There was reference made to opinions that members have received. On that basis, I would prefer it if the House were to allow me to go away, take on board those submissions and come to a more considered point of view. As has been mentioned in the debate, there could be options available to me, one of which could be that I rule that no further discussion take place. That would be a very serious ruling and one that I would not wish to make without due consideration. Based on some of the comments that have been made I would note that, pleasantly—because this is a matter that is within the province of the House—we can actually decide. It is not a matter of resolving a dispute between the houses. But the core principle about the application of the definitions of bills still stands. I thank members who have made comments about that. It is my intention to call on the matter and I would hope that I could have the cooperation of the House in then having the matter immediately adjourned. BILLS 4793 BILLS Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011 4793

Abolition of Age Limit on Payment of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Bill 2011

Second Reading 4793 Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 4794

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011

Second Reading 4794 10:51 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I do not want to see any legislation or policies from this parliament that affect the decision-making process or the decisions made under the Family Law Act that provide less protection for children and families who are at risk of violence or abuse or both. That is why these proposed family law changes deserve very serious scrutiny. I also do not want to see changes to this legislation used and interpreted by anyone in a way that results in unsafe, unhappy children and even more desperate, angry and frustrated parents. Should this legislation be passed, only time, the experience of families, statistical information and genuine, transparent assessment and reporting will provide accurate information on its impacts. There is probably no more difficult or contentious part of the Australian legal system than family law. We know why: it deals with relationship breakdown, disputes between separated parents, the welfare of children and young persons, and divorce and property settlement, which are all extremely difficult, contentious and emotive issues. While the Family Court's paramount considerations are 'the best interests of the child or young person' and 'matters relating to the child's protection and care', it is very difficult—frequently impossible—to provide practical, workable or equitable outcomes for those involved. The explanatory memorandum, in describing the changes being made by the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill, says it: … retains the substance of the shared parenting laws … and continues to promote a child’s right to a meaningful relationship with both parents where this is safe for the child. I have no doubt that most people believe that under this principle decisions should be made in the best interests of the child in family disputes and that a child should have the right to a fair and proper relationship with both of their parents, which was the intent of the shared parenting provisions introduced in 2006. The aims of the 2006 reforms were, in part, to encourage greater involvement by both parents in their children's lives after separation. They were also to protect children from violence and abuse and to help separated parents agree on what is best for their children, rather than litigate, through the provision of useful information and advice as well as effective dispute resolution services. I note that a report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies has confirmed that legislative changes in 2006 placed 'greater emphasis on the need to protect children from harm from exposure to family violence and abuse'. The identification of and response to family violence became more systematic under the 2006 reforms, which have improved some of the ways in which the family law system identifies families at risk of violence. That is an extremely important finding, in my view. The report also noted that the principle of shared parental responsibility is widely supported and that there has been a very substantial shift away from using the Family Court to resolve disputes. This is a very good outcome for all concerned. Another extremely important finding from the AIFS report was that the shared parenting reforms did not expose children to greater risk of violence or abuse. This reflects the intent of the 2006 reforms and the Family Law Act. However, I am seriously concerned that the expanded definition of family violence in the bill before the House may weaken rather than strengthen the protection of the of the 2006 reforms. As we are aware, many cases that reach court involve abuse and neglect, and the Family Court has to try to make sense of broken families and relationships in making its decisions. Rarely are these decisions viewed by all parties as a perfect solution—indeed, they cannot be—and it would be unfair on those who work in the Family Court to expect perfect outcomes. However, neither is it fair to pretend that people are not hurt by the court in reaching its decisions or that in some cases that hurt is extensive to the point of being potentially life-destroying. The true 'winners' in the Family Court process are the children and parents who, in spite of their personal circumstances and hurt, are able agree on outcomes and never get to the Family Court at all other than to ratify that agreement. That was one of the AIFS report's findings about the effects of the 2006 reform—that in the substantial shift away from using the Family Court to resolve disputes, people are genuinely putting the welfare of their children first. They are separating and divorcing as amicably as they can to try to make the best of a very difficult set of circumstances. When that happens, the children are the real winners, and the increasing number of parents who have chosen this course of action since the 2006 reforms have allowed their children to 'win'. For those parents who, for so many reasons, cannot resolve their issues the Family Court is the only option. This bill seeks to address the issue of family violence, in particular the need to protect children from abuse and exposure to abuse; however, in seeking to do so it basically reverses the presumption of innocence—something I am quite concerned about. By removing the need for abuse to be proved, the government by definition is proposing speculation based on unproven accusations. According to the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the new definition of abuse will: … remove the requirement for the assault to be an offence under an enforceable law in a State or Territory. It further says: This means that those working with the Act, including courts, legal practitioners and family members will not be required to have regard to the terms of State and Territory laws when considering whether abuse has occurred. The new definition will remove uncertainty about knowing the elements of an offence and whether an offence has been committed. The final line—'whether an offence has been committed'—seriously concerns me. The bill proposes to remove the certainty that comes with having to prove abuse and imposes the uncertainty of having the court decide whether abuse has occurred. The existing act defines whether an offence has been committed; the bill before the House removes that certainty. How this provision will be used, interpreted and potentially abused by one or both parents is an issue that concerns me, as does how in practical terms it will work for and impact on parents and children. I am seriously concerned that false accusations may well undermine or cover actual cases of abuse that do need to be exposed. This bill defines abuse as: … threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful. (2) Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include (but are not limited to): (a) an assault; or (b) a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour; or (c) stalking; or (d) repeated derogatory taunts; or (e) intentionally damaging or destroying property; or (f) intentionally causing death or injury to an animal; or (g) unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had; or (h) unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or his or her child, at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support; or (i) preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends or culture; or (j) unlawfully depriving the family member, or any member of the family member's family, of his or her liberty. As I said previously, the derogatory taunts were an issue which concerned me. It may therefore be incumbent upon family law exponents to ensure prospective clients report to the appropriate authorities any repeated derogatory taunts which may be used in future legal action. In practical terms, how will this work? After all, in the case of two parents of otherwise good repute this might be the only differential the court can use to make a decision. Perhaps we may well see both spouses keeping diaries to record any form of derogatory remarks for future court reference. The Hull committee report in 2003, on which the 2006 changes to the act were based, considered that while the court should of course protect children from violence and abuse, the law should do more to ensure the involvement of both parents in the majority of families. This is what the explanatory memorandum to this bill seeks to continue. In particular, the law should help people move away from the previous tendency to assume that it was best for children to spend most of their time with one parent and only spend alternate weekends and half of the school holidays with the other parent. How does the government propose to ensure that this right to a real relationship with both parents, as enshrined in the 2000 amendments and explained in the explanatory memorandum, will be preserved under the current proposals? Like many members, I receive constant evidence from people who come into my office with issues. Ten years ago, prior to the 2006 review, a constituent of mine was before the Family Court of Western Australia in a dispute over custody. He was told by the now retired judge that he was not concerned which parent the child was placed with as long as he, the judge, could sleep at night. I know that such a comment—to either gender—can be offensive to the parents. At the time it was a brutally honest reflection of how the decisions were made and what influenced the judge. The reforms of 2006 demonstrate very clearly that there have been changes in this since then. The pain, the resentment and the frustration of being seen as a loser in the Family Court will be with my constituent for life, as it will be for so many others in the community. As I said, I do not want to see any legislation or policies from this parliament that relate to decisions made under the Family Law Act that would provide less protection for children and families who are at risk of violence and abuse. I certainly do not want to see changes used and interpreted by anyone in a way that results in unsafe, unhappy children and even greater numbers of desperately unhappy, angry and frustrated parents. 11:03 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak in favour of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 and I commend the member for Forrest for her contribution on this topic. All governments must take very seriously their responsibility to protect children from child abuse and respond to family violence. That was the message from the Safety for Children Alliance which visited parliament yesterday to demonstrate their support for this bill. If things were a little bit friendlier in this chamber I would have been happy to join them at the front of Parliament House, but it is not the sort of parliament where people can go missing. The Gillard government has also received a number of reports into family law reforms and how the system deals with family violence. These reports include: the Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms by the Australian Institute of Family Studies; the Family courts violence review by Professor Richard Chisholm AM; and Improving responses to family violence in the family law system: An advice on the intersection of family violence and family law issues by the Family Law Council. It is clear from these reports that we can and must do more to protect and support families at risk of abuse or violence. My wife has worked in child protection for more than 20 years and she often tells me of the lifelong scars suffered by those who experience this kind of physical and emotional abuse in the family home. She is a frontline child protection worker, so she only deals with families when things have gone bad. It is horrible to see how some families treat children. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, last night was State of Origin night. For the benefit of Tasmanians and Victorians, for many of us who call New South Wales or Queensland home, State of Origin is one of those iconic contests that brings out our pride and love for our home state and team. Unfortunately, there is one horrible aspect to State of Origin night. I am told that on State of Origin night the state that loses experiences a spike in incidents of domestic violence. I love State of Origin football but, knowing this, on every Origin night I feel anxious about what will happen once the final whistle is blown. So for me, as a Queenslander, a win is always a slightly bittersweet experience—part of me would like every game to be a draw, but I know that will not happen. So when it came to last night's game, I know the Attorney-General, who introduced this bill and whom I was sitting beside, hoped for a different outcome to me, but when it comes to eliminating family violence we are very much on the same team. Family violence and child abuse cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. Children must be protected from harm and violence, as well as from witnessing harm and violence against other family members. Personally, I come from a broken home so I well know that all separating families face incredible stress and pressure as child custody and property matters are resolved. Where there are violence or abuse issues, the anxiety and apprehension experienced by families is all the worse. All too often we see in our newspaper headlines the grim reminders of what happens when things go wrong. All too often it is men—occasionally women—who hurt the ones they love. I know that as a government and a society we can never get it perfectly right. We can never have a system that will prevent every single murder, but that does not mean that we should not try to achieve that system. This bill does not change the essence of our shared parenting laws designed to promote a child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents, obviously where this is safe for the child. All those barneys that we have in family courts, which keep lawyers employed, over access or residency or whatever we want to call it, should always defer to what is best for the children. That should be the prime consideration. This bill will enable the family law system to better respond to matters involving child abuse or family violence. It amends the Family Law Act 1975. We need to revisit that briefly. How groundbreaking it was when the Whitlam government brought in the Family Law Act. It amends that act to prioritise the safety of children in parenting. It changes the meaning of 'abuse' and 'family violence' to better capture harmful behaviour, including actions or threats by a person against another family member or their property. It also includes witnessing such actions or threats. It strengthens adviser obligations. It ensures family courts have better access to evidence of abuse and family violence and it makes it easier for child protection authorities to participate in family law proceedings, because all too often that crucial evidence is missing. Unfortunately, that is probably not great news as concerns workloads for my wife and her work colleagues, but as it will make children's lives safer I am sure they will wear the initiative. The court will quickly consider the need to make any orders to ensure there is sufficient information available about the allegation of family violence or child abuse in order to resolve the issues and ensure that appropriate protections are in place. The bill also makes a number of minor technical amendments to the Family Law Act: it clarifies the Family Court's power to dismiss appeals and to delegate procedural application in appeals to registrars; it clarifies that parentage testing orders and parenting declarations are not parenting orders; and it aligns the Family Court's and the Federal Magistrates Court's provisions on administering oaths or affirmations and on the swearing of affidavits. This bill sends a strong signal that family violence and child abuse will not be tolerated. Violence and threats of violence are never acceptable. I revisit the concept that this is not a silver bullet that will solve everything. Parliament is not the community. I am merely my community's representative. Our laws help people but obviously it is the community that saves lives and that saves children from experiencing harm and rescues them. It is the community that raises children. We are merely a part of that process. All too often, when there is a family tragedy—the all too horrible circumstance of murder, normally of the woman and the children, and then the suicide of the murdering male—people come on talkback radio and say, 'Who should we blame? What member of the government or what government department should we blame?' But too often it is the community that has turned its back on the household in distress. Like the campaign going at the moment for a child protection agency, too often we have turned our back. Obviously, what would have changed things early on was a knock on the door, as neighbours, friends and good citizens do, to say, 'How are you going. Can we take the kids out and give you a break.' Too often our community streets are lined with cells, not homes—these little silos of lives that do not intersect with the people living right next door or right across the road. We see it in the recent tragic circumstances on the Gold Coast. Also, there is a court case happening at the moment concerning young twins in Sunnybank Hills who perished because no-one knocked on the doors and asked what was going on. I welcome the bill and I hope it will have a positive impact on family relationships and children's health, development and wellbeing. I commend the bill to the House. 11:11 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Family law is the one jurisdiction of the federal judicial system to which almost all Australians have had exposure at some level at some time in their lives. It is a sad fact of life that virtually every one of us will either have first-hand experience or have someone, most likely several people, within our circle of friends who has had contact with the court. It is also a sad fact of life that family law disputes are often amongst the most intractable matters to come before a court, often in a context of extreme personal bitterness and too often occasioned by violence and abuse of the most horrible kind. It is also a fact of life that any attempt to resolve these disputes will often leave both parties feeling aggrieved and, much worse, their children exposed to the fallout and remaining at risk of violence and abuse. Many of the failed relationships that come before the courts have been blighted by mental illness and substance abuse problems, sometimes on both sides, and, because judges are human, the courts will not always get it right. In disputes involving children the principal guidance the act provides is that the best interest of the child is the paramount consideration. Just how the best interests of children can be determined, however, is and will always be a vexed question. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, as I know you would be well aware, in December 2003 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Services tabled a unanimous report titled Every picture tells a story. The committee was asked to consider whether, given that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration, what other factors should be taken into account in deciding the respective time each parent should spend with their children, post separation. The committee, headed by Kay Hull MP, heard evidence from more than 2,000 witnesses over six months. One of its findings, which informed many of its recommendations, was: We are convinced that sharing responsibility is the best way to ensure as many children as possible grow up in a caring environment. To share all the important events in a child’s life with both mum and dad, even when families are separated, would be an ideal outcome. This was the finding of the entire committee, across party lines. The committee heard heartbreaking evidence of children separated from one of their parents by inflexible Family Court orders, which caused anguish to parents and children alike and which had long-term detrimental effects on children. The so-called 'shared parenting' laws were introduced by the Howard government in 2006 in response to that report. The changes to the family law system included changes to both the legislation and the family relationship services system. The main elements of the legislative changes were to require parents to attend family dispute resolution before filing a court application, except where there are concerns about family violence and child abuse; to place increased emphasis on the need for both parents to be involved in their children's lives after separation, including the introduction of a presumption of shared parental responsibility; to place greater emphasis on the need to protect children from exposure to family violence and child abuse; and, finally, to introduce legislative support for less adversarial court processes in children's matters. The legislative suite included a requirement for the Australian Institute of Family Studies to undertake a large-scale longitudinal evaluation of the effects of the reforms. That evaluation was completed in December 2009, and I will return to its findings a little later in this speech. The coalition is very proud of the Ruddock reforms and justly so. I turn now to the bill before the House. The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 is a bill to amend the Family Law Act 1975 by including an additional object to give effect to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which decision-makers may have regard when dealing with children's matters; by changing the definition of family violence and abuse; strengthening the obligations of lawyers, dispute resolution practitioners, family consultants and family counsellors to prioritise the safety of children; requiring inquiry and reports on family violence and child abuse to be part of court proceedings; repealing the so-called 'friendly parent' provision; repealing the provision for cost orders in the case of false family violence applications; and providing for simpler procedures for the participation of child welfare agencies in family law proceedings. Some of these amendments will have the coalition's support. Others, however, in our view seek to wind back the Ruddock reforms and will be opposed. I will deal with the substantive provisions in turn. Prioritising the safety of the child: the bill proposes to insert a new subsection to section 60CC, which requires the court, when determining what is in the child's best interests, to give greater weight to the primary consideration that protects the child from harm where there is inconsistency in applying the two primary considerations—the other consideration being the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. This amendment is unnecessary and gratuitous. The existing section 60CA makes the best interests of the child the paramount consideration, and existing section 60B clearly articulates that a meaningful relationship with a parent is subordinate to the paramount consideration. In purported aid of the objective of this amendment, the bill seeks to add, as a further object of part 7 of the act, that it is to give effect to the UN convention. The explanatory memorandum states that the intention is to confirm, in cases of ambiguity, that part 7 should be interpreted consistently with the convention. However, to the extent that the act departs from the convention, the act will prevail. The proposed amendment does not incorporate the convention into domestic law. Given that the act already gives effect to the principle of the paramountcy of the best interests of the child, the need for this amendment is not clear. At this stage this is a matter for the consideration of the Senate committee. The opposition reserves its position as to whether this amendment will ultimately be necessary. I turn to the definition of family violence. The exposure draft of this bill proposed a definition of family violence that included any behaviour that was subjectively emotionally, psychologically or economically abusive or threatening. Many stakeholders have voiced their concern that any instance of marital discord could be tailored to fit this definition. The definition now proposed defines family violence as: … violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family … or causes the family member to be fearful. It differs from the existing definition in that it imposes a subjective test. The existing definition requires a reasonable fear for the family member's wellbeing or safety. The new definition attempts to qualify its subjectivity by incorporating a list of examples of behaviour which includes assaults, repeated derogatory taunts, damage to property and other unreasonable or criminal behaviour. However, it is an open question as to whether the list of examples is sufficient to frame and limit the subjective definition. There is no doubt that any of these behaviours exhibited would cause a person to be fearful. They would also give rise to a reasonable fear for a person's wellbeing or safety under the existing test. The problem with the subjective test is that a person seeking to demonstrate that another person is violent need only state that he or she fears controlling or coercive conduct. The state of mind need not be reasonable. The consequences of a finding of violence can be drastic and permanent. It is not appropriate that a court need not inquire as to whether the fear is well founded. Accordingly, the coalition will press for the retention of the objective test in the existing legislation. I turn to identification, inquiry and reporting on family violence and child abuse. The Australian Institute of Family Studies evaluation found that the legislative changes introduced as part of the 2006 reforms placed greater emphasis on the need to protect children from harm and from exposure to family violence and child abuse. This meant that the identification of, and response to, family violence became more systemic under the reforms. However, it found that improvements still need to be made in identifying and responding to pertinent safety concerns. The proposed amendments broaden the reporting requirements in this regard to interested persons rather than just the parties in child related proceedings. This will include independent children's lawyers, dispute resolution practitioners, family consultants and family counsellors. There is a continuing need to improve responses to child safety concerns and it is recommended, subject to the specific findings of the Senate committee, that these amendments be supported. Similarly, the record of child welfare agencies in family law proceedings has in many cases been deeply unsatisfactory. Amendments to improve their participation and accountability are welcomed by the coalition. Turning to the repeal of the friendly parent provision, section 60CC(3)(c) of the act currently requires family courts to consider the willingness of one parent to facilitate the other having a meaningful relationship with the child. The provision has been criticised as discouraging parents from disclosing family violence and child abuse for fear of being found to be 'unfriendly'. The bill seeks to repeal this provision and replace it with considerations of the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity to participate in major long-term decisions in relation to the child, spend time with and communicate with the child and the extent to which each of the parents has fulfilled or failed to fulfil parental obligations to maintain the child. These criteria already exist in section 60CC(4). The explanatory memorandum cites the Australian Institute of Family Studies evaluation and the Family Law Council report as the basis for the repeal of this provision. This is misleading. The Australian Institute of Family Studies found that some concerns were expressed that the provision discouraged the reporting of violence, but there was no statistical information to suggest that this was actually the case. The criticism was in fact voiced in the Chisholm report, which was uncited in this bill's explanatory memorandum, and was described as 'gossip' by the Family Law Council. Failure to facilitate a relationship between a child and a separated parent remains a salient issue for the attention of a court and has been found to be an incident of emotional abuse in several reported cases. If the enhanced violence and abuse reporting obligations are supported, there can be no reason for a parent's obstructive behaviour to be excluded from consideration. I will turn to the final matter that concerns the opposition, which is cost orders in relation to false allegations of abuse and violence. The bill repeals section 117AB, which provides for mandatory cost orders, albeit that some such orders might cover only a portion of the costs. These orders are made when a party knowingly makes a false allegation or statement in the proceedings. The explanatory memorandum cites the Australian Institute of Family Studies evaluation and the Family Law Council report as finding that the section operates as a disincentive for disclosing family violence. Again, this is misleading. The Chisholm report alludes to practitioner concern as the basis for its recommendation for repeal, but neither of the major studies cited make any substantive finding. The Family Law Council report in fact recommends that the provision be clarified with an explanatory note or public education campaign. It should be noted that the test within section 117AB is a stringent one. A mandatory costs order could not arise from evidence that was not preferred in the circumstances or even from evidence given recklessly or without belief. It applies only to knowingly false evidence. If a court was prepared to make such a finding, there is no reason why a costs order should not follow. Individual members of the judiciary have confirmed that such false accusations are by no means unknown and that sanctions should apply in such cases. The policy objectives of the 2006 reforms were to help build strong, healthy relationships and prevent separation, to encourage greater involvement of both parents in their children's lives after separation, to protect children from violence and abuse, to help separated parents agree on what is best for their children rather than litigating through the provision of useful information and advice and effective dispute resolution services, and to establish a highly visible entry point that operates as a doorway to other services and helps families to access those other services. As the Australian Institute of Family Studies evaluation confirmed, the legislative changes introduced as part of the reforms placed greater emphasis on the need to protect children from harm and from exposure to family violence and child abuse. This meant that the identification of and response to family violence became more systemic under the reforms. The Ruddock reforms have been the subject of criticism. However, all the indications are that the reforms have been largely successful. Many of the criticisms have arisen from misinterpretations, whether wilful or otherwise. Sensibly, the government has withdrawn from its more radical proposals and at this stage will leave the core shared parenting provisions largely intact. However, it is disturbing that it has accepted the criticisms of the friendly parent and cost order provisions at face value and has misleadingly cited positive or neutral findings on those provisions in support of its proposed amendments. The coalition will always support any sensible proposals to reduce the exposure of children to abuse and family violence. Our record indicates that and it takes these issues very seriously. Some of the amendments proposed by this bill are worthy of support. However, as I have said, it must be recognised that proceedings in the family jurisdiction are some of the most bitterly contested and intractable found in any litigation. Judges and practitioners are well aware that child related proceedings may be brought for any number of collateral purposes—which of course is in itself a form of child abuse—and that mechanisms must exist to deal with this. For these reasons, I will be moving the amendments that have already been circulated in the chamber. 11:28 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide It is with great pleasure that I speak in support of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 today. Earlier this year, the Attorney-General and I launched the national plan to reduce violence against women and their children—a groundbreaking 12-year plan to end the unacceptable levels of domestic and family violence being perpetrated in Australia each and every day. I am pleased to say that this Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill is further evidence of this government's ongoing commitment in this area. Today, I take the opportunity to address not only what this important bill will do but also why it is needed. It is important to dispel some of the myths that have grown up around the issue of family and domestic violence in this country and to place the facts firmly on the record. Firstly, I acknowledge the significant work of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the Family Law Council and Professor the Hon. Richard Chisholm in providing the strong evidentiary basis for these amendments. I especially acknowledge the numerous women, men and children who have shared their painful experiences to help inform the development of these important changes to the law. The reforms will allow Australia's family law system to respond more effectively to family violence and child abuse. Importantly, the reforms we are introducing through this legislation will ensure the safety of children during the process of separation. This bill will prioritise the safety of children in parenting matters. It will strengthen the obligations of family consultants, family counsellors, family dispute resolution practitioners, and lawyers to prioritise the safety of children. Under the proposed reforms these advisers must encourage families to focus on the best interests of the child and, in doing so, to put the wellbeing of their children front and centre when reaching parenting arrangements. Importantly, we are actively removing the provisions that had the perverse effect of discouraging the reporting of family violence. To this end, there will be a new duty on the courts to ask each party about the existence or risk of family violence and child abuse. Parties will have to report their concerns about family violence and child abuse to the courts, and the courts will have to deal promptly with these concerns. Other people interested in the proceedings will be able to make similar reports to the courts. Courts will no longer consider the extent to which a parent is friendly to the other parent, and individuals will no longer need to fear being saddled with a costs order if they report family violence to the courts. The bill will also make it easier for state and territory child protection authorities to participate in family law proceedings where appropriate. These are all vital reforms in our goal to secure safer parenting arrangements for children. This bill will continue to support shared care and a child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents. However, where family violence or abuse is a concern the courts will be required to prioritise the safety of the child over the child's maintaining a meaningful relationship with each parent. The bill will also give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, allowing decision-makers, in the event of any ambiguity, to interpret the Family Law Act consistently with Australia's obligations under the convention. As part of these amendments, behaviour such as stalking and emotional, psychological and economic abuse is explicitly referenced in the definitions. These amendments are extremely important to a government that is committed to addressing the epidemic of family and domestic violence in this country. The rate of domestic and family violence in this country is an epidemic, but it is an epidemic that is not frequently discussed either in this House or in our neighbourhoods and communities. Let us take a moment to look at the facts. Those who suffer from family violence are predominantly women and children. The evidence for this is irrefutable. Research by the Australian Bureau of Statistics has found that one in three Australian women has experienced physical violence since the age of 15. Research conducted in Victoria just a couple of years ago revealed that intimate-partner violence is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness amongst women in that state who are aged between 15 and 44. Shockingly, while these rates of violence in the general population are appalling, we know that Indigenous women and girls are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence than other Australian women and girls. There seems to be what I find a very concerning trend in this country for people, both men and women, to try and play down the statistics—to try and shy away from them—or shut down discussion on the matter, but it will be absolutely impossible to make inroads into these family and domestic violence figures if people continue to diminish their importance. Family violence is at the root of some of the biggest social issues facing our nation, including mental health, alcohol and substance abuse, poor education outcomes in children and homelessness. That is why it is entirely infuriating to read about or hear people who play down the impacts and incidence of family violence, suggesting that the problem of street violence against men is far more significant. Let us be clear that all violence must be acted upon, and for this reason we must bring it out of the shadows. We must ensure that we face what is a deeply disturbing reality. It is important to take this opportunity to dispel the myths and put some facts on the record. While it is true that men are more likely to be victims of violence, this violence occurs predominantly at the hands of a stranger and in public places, such as the street or the pub, not at the hands of a family member, not at the hands of a partner, not at the hands of those they trust the most and not in their own home. In fact, violence against women and children is, tragically, too often hidden within the family. As the studies that support these amendments have shown, we know that many cases of domestic and family violence and family abuse continue to be underreported. The evidence base for these amendments is undeniable. The Australian Institute of Family Studies and the Family Law Council say that the Family Law Act is failing to properly protect children and other family members from family violence and abuse. The Australian Law Reform Commission and the New South Wales Law Reform Commission have both emphasised the need for the family law system to respond more effectively to family violence. In his review, Professor Chisholm found that many families before the Family Court have had to ask the question: 'Do I report family violence to the court and risk losing my children or should I instead stay silent?' We simply cannot and should not live with a family law system in which parents are forced to ask that question or are forced to stay silent when they know there is a risk to family safety. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, we must act to deliver the necessary reforms and ensure the best outcomes for vulnerable women, men and children. As I have already mentioned, the government has been presented with substantial evidence from Australia's top research bodies that some provisions of the Family Law Act were discouraging the reporting of family violence. Specifically, both the AIFS and the Family Law Council have demonstrated evidence that parties were not disclosing concerns of family violence and child abuse for fear of being found to be an unfriendly parent under the act. We are changing that provision. In addition, there was evidence that vulnerable parents were choosing not to raise legitimate safety concerns for themselves and their children due to the fear that they would be subject to a costs order if their case was not proven before the court. We have made sure that these cost orders are no longer mandatory. The amendments in this bill will make it easier for the court and other decision makers to inform themselves about family violence when determining matters under the Family Law Act. Through these amendments we hope to see increased reporting of family violence in Family Court matters. We know that this violence does exist. We need to make sure that the court is in a position to receive and weigh evidence on it. This leads me to the final myth that I would like to dispel today. There has been some opposition to this bill from individuals and groups who say that separated mothers routinely make false accusations of family violence and child abuse. They say that vindictive parents commonly pressure their children to make false claims for the purposes of revenge or to gain tactical advantage in child custody disputes. It is concerning that these groups are gaining increasing prominence and respectability in this country, that we are hearing their arguments repeated across the nation and indeed in the parliament and that they are distorting domestic family violence figures, spreading misinformation and propagating the view that family violence and child abuse claims are fabricated during custody proceedings. But what is more concerning is that this spurious view seems to have gotten some traction in our community. Surveys undertaken a few years ago by VicHealth found that 46 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement that: … women going through custody battles often make up claims of domestic violence to improve their case. Forty-six per cent of respondents agreed with this. I would like to be very clear about this. This reasoning has been entirely debunked by research in Australia and overseas. A report in 2007 by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that the family violence allegation rates in custody proceedings in the Family Court of Australia or in the Federal Magistrates Court are similar to the reported rates of spousal violence profiles in the general divorcing population. In short, claims that abuse allegations are manufactured are bogus and unsupported by any respectable form of evidence. Violence and abuse claims are not being made up to support some perceived advantage in Family Court cases. In fact, Australian research tells us that the concerns about child and family violence are real, especially during divorce proceedings. Women and children are at their most vulnerable to family violence when parents are separating, and we have seen some pretty high-profile examples of this in recent weeks. These amendments before the House ensure that our family law system can never again be described as failing to adequately protect children and other family members from family violence and child abuse. These amendments make sure that the Family Court asks the question about family violence. These amendments make sure that the court has the facts that it needs to make child safety a priority. Some people have said that the reforms in this bill will be bad for men or that they will be good for women, but this is not a debate about that. This is a debate about the rights and safety of children and the responsibilities of parents. It is not a contest about who will be better or worse off. All family members have the right to be free from harm and to live without fear of violence or abuse. I am pleased to note that this bill has been strongly supported by the community, by those professionals who work in the family law system and by those who have worked so long and so hard to bring about change. In fact, an overwhelming majority of the 400 submissions received during the exposure draft process supported these changes. The government recognises and upholds the right of each child to have love and support from both parents, but that comes unequivocally with the responsibility to protect them from harm. I congratulate the Attorney-General and his department for their work in achieving a significant law reform package. This is something that our government is committed to, both in legislation and through support programs and the new national plan. We will work in solidarity with every state and territory government of all political persuasions to turn around what are staggering, disturbing and very real statistics in our community. I would hope that this is something we could work on in a bipartisan fashion in this House, because Australia has a shameful record. It is a record that we need to bring out of the darkness. We need to confront it head on. We need to make sure that we are saving more children, women, men and family members from this sort of abuse. 11:42 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I acknowledge the comments made by my parliamentary colleague the member for Adelaide. Many of the points that she made are extremely important in this debate. I rise today to speak on the proposed amendments to the Family Law Act through the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. There is no doubt that we all condemn violence towards children and partners in a relationship, particularly women. This is not a debate about that. This is a debate around several proposed changes to the act which have come about after several reports were released last year, including the Australian Institute of Family Studies' Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms, Professor Chisholm's Family Court's violence review and the Family Law Council's submission, Improving responses to family violence in the family law system. Essentially, this bill seeks to include a provision to give effect to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, extend the definition of family violence, extend responsibility for inquiry and reporting into allegations of violence and wind back the reforms introduced by the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in 2006. It also repeals provisions relating to the facilitation relationships with separated parents and costs orders with respect to false allegations. The 2006 Ruddock reforms put the best interests of the child at heart. A child in a situation such as divorce has a right to be safe and to maintain a relationship with both parents where possible. The coalition believes it is best for separated parents to agree on what is best for their children and not to be dictated to by government. And the child should have the ability to build and maintain a strong relationship with both parents. It is a very fine balancing act to get family law right, and the government needs to consult with all family groups. It is not surprising that when the Gillard government released an exposure draft of the bill last year that there was a widespread community response. The radical changes did not sit well with some in the family law community and thus the current bill was proposed by the government. We are also in the middle of an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on this very bill. They are due to report their findings on 23 June and this inquiry has also received a number of responses. At my last count there were 210 unique submissions, of which there was a submission from an organisation in my electorate of Hasluck. The Gosnells Community Legal Centre submitted a letter to the inquiry outlining not only its general support for the bill but its recommendations to further strengthen the reforms commenced in 2006. I thank the Gosnells Community Legal Centre for making its views known in such a topical debate. I know that family law affects a number of my constituents in Hasluck and the Gosnells Community Legal Centre does an outstanding job of representing and assisting people throughout the city of Gosnells. Section 60CA of the Family Law Act, entitled 'Child's best interests paramount consideration in making a parenting order', states: In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. This bill proposes to insert a new subsection into section 60CC which is to prioritise the rights of the child. This is quite unnecessary as section 60CA, which I read before, clearly puts the child first in making a decision in regard to the parenting order. The government also purports that this will give effect to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The explanatory memorandum states that this inclusion is to reinforce the fact that part VII of the act should be interpreted under the UN convention. However, what it does not state is the fact that when the act departs from the UN convention the act will prevail. Therefore, the addition of this amendment will not actually override the act nor incorporate the convention into domestic law. Thus, one would have to wonder what is the purpose of this amendment. Why include it if the act already deals with the exact issue and will not actually impact upon areas of domestic law? The child should always be the centre of decisions made in respect to a parenting order and the 2006 reforms ensured that this was the case. The bill goes on to extend the definition of family violence. It is good to see that sometimes the Gillard government does listen to its constituents and key stakeholders because when the exposure draft of this bill was released there were a number of people concerned that the new definition could lead to issues in an everyday marriage being defined and argued to be family violence. Yes, family violence does affect people emotionally, psychologically and economically, but the government expanded this to the extent that a simple marital argument or action that one party deemed to be unfair could be defined as violence. Whilst it is good to see that the government did conduct a consultation process and actually listened to those Australians who made an effort to have their say, the new definition is unfortunately no better. The newly proposed definition of family violence may weaken rather than strengthen the concept. Whereas the existing definition required a reasonable fear for the family member's wellbeing or safety, the new definition is both vague and an overextension of the government to try and categorise what family violence actually is. The new definition states that family violence is: … violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful. It then attempts to qualify this by listing 10 behaviours which would qualify under the new definition. The list, in which there is no doubt that the behaviour is not only unreasonable but in some cases criminal, still leaves open the question of whether it frames the definition suitably. One facet of this bill which is a step in the right direction is the broadening of the reporting requirements of cases of family violence and child abuse to 'interested persons' rather than just the parties to the proceedings. Therefore, this will include children's lawyers, dispute resolution practitioners, family consultants and family counsellors. Response to child safety concerns should always be improved and built upon. Greater accountability and participation is very much welcomed. The biggest concern of this amendment is the repealing of the 'friendly parent' and 'costs orders' provisions under the current Family Law Act. These were key reforms under the former Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in 2006 and, whilst the reforms have been subjected to a sustained ideological attack, all indications are that the reforms have been very successful and ultimately supported. The 'friendly parent' provision of the current act is defined under section 60CC(3)(c) as being: … the willingness and ability of each of the child's parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent … This ultimately means that the family courts will have to consider the enthusiasm of one parent to work with the other to establish a relationship with the child. Whilst the government claims that the provision discourages parents' disclosure of family violence for fear of being deemed unfriendly, the current act deals with this in section 60CC(4). The bill will repeal section 60CC(3)(c) and replace it with considerations of the extent to which each of the child's parents has taken, or failed to take, the opportunity to participate in major long-term decisions in relation to the child, to spend time with and to communicate with the child and the extent to which each of the parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent's obligations to maintain the child. This is already in the act in section 60CC(4). The failure of parents to be encouraged to foster a relationship between a child and a separated parent is a major issue in the family law courts and could be found to be an emotional abuse in some cases. Another major element of the current act is the repealing of section 117AB, which provides for mandatory costs orders where a party knowingly makes a false allegation or statement in the proceedings. I know of several families in Hasluck who have had to deal with this section of the act and it has actually protected the child and the other partner from having to bear the cost of defending against a false allegation. Without mandatory costs for knowingly making a false allegation of family violence, it opens up the courts to added cases and will impact adversely upon families. The reasoning behind repealing this section of the act is that the cost orders supposedly discourage individual allegations of family violence for fear of having to pay the court costs if found to be false. The test for having to pay mandatory costs orders is stringent. It applies to knowingly providing false evidence, thus could not arise from evidence that was not proffered in the circumstances, or was given recklessly or without belief. If ever a court were to make such a finding—that one party knowingly provided false evidence—then there is no reason why a costs order should not follow. False accusations are not unknown and sanctions should apply. In the debate around costs orders we should not forget that the safety of the child needs to be paramount. By removing the imposition of costs orders on false allegations, the government is opening up children to the added burden of having to go through extra court processes and angst between parents when a false allegation is made. If there is no disincentive to making false allegations it is much easier to accuse your partner of family violence without any evidence or deterrence. There will be people that will forsake the truth for their own personal gains. The child and the truth are paramount to this argument. By removing costs orders there are three parties that will be affected: firstly, the child or children in question. Having to go through the courts to determine whether the family violence allegation is in fact true or not is a psychological stress that is unwarranted. In the context of the allegation being false, why should the person making the allegation not be reprimanded? This one person, who knowingly made a false allegation and provided false evidence, will not have to bear the costs of the court proceeding and there is no deterrence to adding this stress onto their child. It may sound like I am implying that once this bill passes, every disaffected parent will go out and make false allegations of family violence, but that is not what I am advocating. I am speaking for those women and men who may find themselves in these situations. This brings me to the second party affected: the parent who has had the false allegation made against them. This is not only an emotional and psychological blow to them but an added financial cost to defend themselves against an allegation that is not even true! How fair is that? Divorces are always costly exercises, especially where there are children involved. Financial costs added by defending oneself against false allegations can adversely affect one's willingness to work with the other parent towards what is best for the child and for their employment and future prospects. I mentioned previously that there are three parties affected by the repealing of costs orders, and the final party is the courts. Family law courts are already overburdened and stretched to their limits. If there were to be an increase in false allegations which the courts must act upon, this will add increased stress on the services provided by this institution. Yes, courts should investigate all allegations of family violence and, as I have previously stressed, the interests of the child are paramount in this process, but having no deterrence for making false allegations is a step in the wrong direction. We, as a parliament, should foster a context of resolution and negotiation, not one that is adversarial between parents. Once it becomes adversarial then this can easily escalate into verbal battles and potential violence, increasing the risk to the child's physical, social and emotional wellbeing. I wish to reaffirm my commitment to any sensible proposals which reduce the exposure of children to abuse and family violence. The coalition's record indicates that we take this issue very seriously. Whilst some of the amendments proposed are worthy of support, clauses 18, 19, 20 and 43 of the bill, which refer to the repealing of the 'friendly parent' and 'costs orders' sections of the act, are particularly worrying. Proceedings to do with family law are some of the most bitterly contested and difficult processes to get right. I look forward to the recommendations from the Senate inquiry and hope that they are a step in the right direction for Australian families. 11:56 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page I rise in support of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I do so because this is a bill that is designed to improve the situation regarding the best interests of the child and it is about safety of children. We will disagree about ways in which this can happen, but I think all members would agree that if we are dealing with legislation involving children, the safety of children has to be the primary principle, the starting point. In family law that is not always easy. In fact it can be quite fraught. Family law is an area that legal practitioners either embrace or eschew, which is indicative that it is not an easy area to work in. I commend those legal practitioners and others who choose to work in this area, many of whom love doing so and do it extremely well. It can be really difficult to determine through the prism of law and courts, in a system that might have parts grafted into it involving mediation or working out what is in the best interests but ultimately still within that conflict paradigm, because that is how a lot of our court systems operate—in a contested environment. I really want to commend the Attorney-General for the work he has done in this area. He has done it methodically and forensically over a period of years. He has been mindful of the reviews, mindful of public opinion and very mindful that some changes needed to happen in this area, if not to get it completely right—I am not sure how you can ever do that—then certainly to make it better. That takes me back to looking at the 2006 evaluation done by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. They looked at the impact of the changes, which included the introduction of the presumption of shared parental responsibility in the Family Law Act 1975. That was taken up in the community—not in the legislation itself but the way it was inculcated into the community and the legal community—as meaning equal parenting; equal time. That seemed to be a push by some, but a reading of the legislation did not say that. Shared parental responsibility is certainly something that was widely supported, and is still widely supported. In fact, that is what a lot of parents do—they just get on and do it and they do not need to be in the Family Court. Once you are before the Family Court, you already have a problem. You are not there because everything is hunky-dory and everyone is getting on—though some people do rock up and get their agreements registered and things like that. You are there because there is discord and disagreement, and in some situations there is violence. That has never been an easy matter to deal with, either, within the Family Court system. If you are looking after protecting the best interests of the child, that is done at a state level with state agencies and then you have the situation where you are going before the Family Court, the two parents and a child or children, and raising the issues. My experience has seen a reluctance on the part of state agencies to get involved, because they say it is a matter before the Family Court, yet they have a primary responsibility to that child. I have always found a gap in that area. That gap still exists, and that is something that still needs to be tackled in a broad sense. Some of the children who are subjected to violence or abuse or are in a situation where they are affected by it in certain ways, if not directly physically then psychologically and in other ways, are falling through the gaps. That is a hard area that requires a lot more to happen at state level, and I hope that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has that on its agenda. The Australian Institute of Family Studies also found that the principle of shared parental responsibility, although widely supported, was misconstrued often as requiring equal shared care time and led to unrealistic expectations among some parents. Therein lies a problem as well. They also found that the majority of parents in shared care arrangements believed they were working well but there were concerns where ongoing fear of violence existed, and these were concerns and situations that were not being addressed and needed to be. Then there was the Family Courts Violence Review, conducted by Professor Richard Chisholm, and also the Improving Responses to Family Violence in the Family Law System review, and that was carried out by the Family Law Council. They looked at the effectiveness of legislation as well as court practices and procedures, particularly in cases involving family violence, which was what it was about. We found after these reviews that there was still a long way to go in effectively responding to issues relating to family violence. They actually said some way to go, but my comment is that there is a long way to go in that area. Hence we have had a series of consultations with the public, and there have been submissions. I have received submissions and I have put forward submissions from my area, and they have been broadly supportive of effecting some change in this area and a recalibration, if you like, of the Family Law Act to make sure children's interests are taken care of. People often say if we stop a parent from seeing a child, more violence could ensue, but my reading of all the research and statistics shows that the violence usually happens during access. It is not a case of stopping access, but I want to put that point on the record. The Attorney released some new research, I think in May, and again it was from the Australian Institute of Family Studies. It found that interparental conflict, fear, abuse or safety concerns remain prevalent for a significant number of parents following separation, and that almost one in four parents experienced family violence before their separation, and in many cases children had witnessed some of the abuse or violence. That is consistent over a long period of time with the statistics that we have about family violence and domestic violence. We know it is still prevalent in the community and we know that when parents separate and there has been violence in the broad sense of the definition, not just the physical, that does not stop. That gets played out in a range of ways, and it gets played out in the ongoing relationship that the parents have to have with the children. It can then get played out institutionally through the institutions. It has been a real problem. I have talked with many parents in that situation, particularly women. I am doing that at the moment, and they just feel rather bereft—they feel that the law is not helping them or their children in any way, and they do not know where to turn. I know some of them are keen to see the changes this amendment will bring, but some of them say it does not go far enough. There will always be comments like that, but it is a matter of how far you can go in this area. The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, said: The bill will amend the Family Law Act 1975 to promote safer parenting arrangements for children. As people who pass laws we need to be mindful that the laws we pass do precisely that. The Attorney-General further said: Firstly, the bill will prioritise the safety of children in family law proceedings. That is really important, because even though the rhetoric has been there for a long time it has been far more difficult to put it into practice within a setting of contestation, accusations, allegations, counteraccusations and counterallegations and where you might get state agencies with a hands-off approach. Then you might have a situation in which the court appoints a legal representative for the child. That can be helpful, but that is not properly worked through either. The child has their own lawyer and the parents have their own lawyers, so you are adding some more people into the mix. Sometimes they are told that the parents are not able to talk to the children about certain things. As I said, it is a fraught area. There are no easy answers, but this amendment will give a bit more certainty to those safer parenting arrangements for children and a bit more certainty around the interest of the child being first and paramount. This amended act will include an additional object to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which decision makers may have regard when dealing with children's matters under the Family Law Act. Under our legal system that does not happen just of right. It has to be legislated so that it is in there. That will give the decision maker some extra tools for doing what they do now, which is looking at the child's best interest. That is really important, and I know a lot of people have welcomed it. It also strengthens the obligations of lawyers, family dispute resolution practitioners, family consultants and family counsellors to prioritise the safety of children. So there will be that legislative requirement as well, and it is important to have that in there. To that end, the courts dealing with children's matters will have to ask the parties to proceedings about family violence and child abuse. That is seminal, because if you do not ask you often do not find out. I recall that when people presented to hospitals with accident emergencies the question of whether they were victims of domestic violence never used to be asked. That was changed first of all in New South Wales and then around Australia. And—surprise, surprise!—when the question was asked they found out. Asking that question is really helpful in getting a better outcome for the child, and that is what this legislation does. I commend the Attorney-General and I commend the legislation. 12:11 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley I first of all acknowledge the students from Elisabeth Murdoch College and their teachers Kevin and Amy, who are in the gallery today. It is great to see young people gaining a sense of how the legislative process operates in Australia as part of their education. I welcome them warmly and hope today is informative and useful for them. The discussion we are having now is about amendments to the family law framework. The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 is not without some contention. It seeks to amend a body of law that for all members in this parliament is a very difficult area in which we are all called to work and to assist people aggrieved by a process that, by its very nature, means we are engaged because people are frightfully unhappy—and I commend the previous speaker, the member for Page, for that phrasing. The dissolution of a relationship or the breakdown of a family is traumatic and difficult enough at the best of times, but our legal framework expects people who might have—dare I say—a hatred for each other to somehow rise above their personal feelings and to be very objective, calm and open to mutual adjustment at a time when they would probably rather drive over the other person with their car. This is an awful lot to ask. All the qualities and characteristics we hope would come to the fore after a family finds it can no longer maintain the unit and the harmony that it may have once had are very difficult to find at a time of such distress, at a time of disappointment and at a time when what was once, hopefully, a collaborative relationship between parents may have become quite combative. In the 15 years I have been in this place, few areas have attracted as much effort from me or as much tension in the constituency as this area of family law, because people come to my office when they are very unhappy and they are looking for a way to resolve that unhappiness. In a perfect world, as was touched on by the previous speaker, a family breakdown or dissolution will not ever come to fully utilise the provisions of the law we are discussing. Parents with a shared and deep commitment to the wellbeing of their children will work through what works best for the kids. In my contributions to this debate I often say, 'For the sake of the kids, let's find a way of making this work better.' I am pleased to say that the Howard government did find a way of making it work better, with a series of reforms that I think were quite groundbreaking and followed an enormous amount of work. Admittedly, there were some incremental improvements over time, but it was an effort that brought to the fore an improvement in the tool kit that is available to resolve these very difficult and at times combative and distressing family law disputes. If people can sort these things out amicably and in a spirit of mutual adjustment—one where their love and devotion for each other is no longer the issue but where there is a joint-venture between the parents to raise healthy children—many of the provisions of this law are not called upon. What we are actually talking about is a legal framework which seeks to encourage people to behave in a way that might not be the way they are feeling. As I have often said, trying to use black-letter law to get people to behave in a way that is not in their hearts is very difficult. We are back here today searching for new legal instruments to try to encourage people in situations where collaborative problem-solving, shared purpose and a new joint venture to raise healthy children may not be what is in their hearts—they may just want to win. They might want to win what they might view as the last argument with their partner or spouse at the end of a long period of unhappiness. Or they might just want to make sure that they do not lose too much. When I was first elected, the family law process seemed to adopt a winner-take-all approach. If you won the argument, all of the policy settings flowed your way. For too many that meant a role specialisation. During the relationships, parents would share in the raising of children, the securing of money and resources, and the giving of their love, care and support for their loved ones. When the relationship fell apart, it was almost as if there was a role separation. You became either the carer—there was a term 'custody' and a sense of ownership of the children—or you were basically left to bankroll the place. One was the carer and the other was the cash cow. You can see how that would be unsatisfactory for many, because the relationship had been so much more before the marriage came to the point where it needed to be dissolved. There was a fantastic body of work done by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. It produced a report entitled Every picture tells a story. I pay tribute to Kay Hull and the team on that committee who worked through the difficult, emotional and at times traumatic task of trying to unpick so many individual experiences to try to find a better legal framework to support care arrangements for children after a relationship dissolves. What was interesting was that, at the end of that work, some of the tools were legislative or legal. But there was an insight that that on its own is not enough. The work of that committee brought forward the creation of the family relationship centres. This was a change in the toolkit which helped to create some prospect that people would get help at a difficult time to work through questions about who would give primary care, what the shape of the care would be or how the financial needs of the children would be met. That was a terrific body of work, but there were also some legislative changes sitting alongside the provision of resources for the community and families to use in those sorts of situation. I want to pay particular tribute to the Family Relationship Centre in Frankston for its remarkable work and the recent report it published showing that it is making a very real difference in the lives of people facing a very traumatic stage in their life and in their children's lives. I salute all the people involved in that area. Helen Constas and her team and the committed professionals and volunteers at the Peninsula Community Legal Centre are also part of the picture in providing help for people to understand the legal framework so they can mediate and negotiate and explore possibilities. Not far from Frankston Station there is a little place where courageous people make sure access arrangements and time with children can be facilitated, observed and even supervised—to make sure that violence does not play out. That service is a very important and overworked service. So there was a broad toolkit of support in addition to the law, but there was also an acknowledgement that we had not quite got this right and that we needed to revisit our approach. So a number of reviews were part of that package of measures, and those significant 2006 reforms to the law and to some of the infrastructure that sits around it were partly what fed the discussion today. What we are talking about is: can we improve that system? The government has come forward with what they think might be ways of improving it. I am very interested in those opportunities for improvement, because I am not convinced that we have it precisely right. But I am also not entirely optimistic that we will ever get it right, because it does require participants to take some responsibility for their own actions and the wellbeing of the children they have brought into this world—and how you get that message across is a difficult problem. One of the key elements was this idea of a presumption of equally shared parental responsibility. The idea there was not that someone would come to a discussion about future care arrangements with a right or entitlement to share the care as a card that they could play in the argy-bargy that took place as these arrangements were being sorted out. What it aimed to say was that a parent—mother or father—can make a meaningful contribution to the raising of children. Just as we value and make sure that people make financial contributions to the raising of children, surely parental care, support and nurturing should be part of that contribution—a rounded contribution that is in the best interests of the children. That was one of the presumptions made. To many it overcame that point that I was making the earlier about the 'winner takes it all' attitude that made some of these family law processes incredibly combative. That approach set it up so that, where there was a contest—not in every case—the outcome for care arrangements was black or white, not shades of grey. The new presumption meant that the court was asked to consider how care arrangements could be best set up where parents had an equal commitment to the best interests of the child. A series of checklists was brought forward to work through that. The wellbeing of the child remained at the pinnacle of those considerations, but there were a range of other considerations that could be brought in. At the heart of these was the objective of ensuring the child maintained a meaningful relationship with both parents, although not at the expense of protecting the child from harm. But there are examples which show that that idea, and the legal framework which supported it, has not always been well implemented. I am always cautious about junking a legal provision, because the problem may be that it is being exercised poorly rather than that it has been poorly framed. All the reports that have been done—whether it is the Chisholm review, whether it is the Family Law Council report, whether it is the report of the Australian Institute of Family Studies—have again and again identified the need for training and professional development to be improved; the need to build knowledge and capacity to make sure that legal provisions are properly exercised and implemented; the need to deal with what may be argued is a misunderstanding about the primacy of the protection of children and the subsidiary nature of other considerations. I am not convinced that the law needs to be changed in the way proposed in the bill. My reading of the law and my consideration of the reviews into it suggest that there may be some misunderstanding or confusion, but I am not sure that that resides within the law itself. I think there is a considerable opportunity to build, amongst the professionals who are involved in the process, awareness and knowledge of its implementation and the use of evidence and information to inform better decisions. That process is always guided by the best interests of the child but takes into account other legitimate considerations, with the ambition of optimising the contribution of both parents, not just financially but also in terms of their love, care and support. Family law is an area where concerns about violence and child abuse have often emerged. Family violence is abhorrent. It is completely unacceptable in our community, and it is particularly unacceptable at a time of family adjustment and transition such as during the dissolution or discontinuation of a relationship. The dissolution of a relationship may be a consequence of abuse and violence, and of course that must be taken into account and be a key consideration in the prime objective, which is the wellbeing of the child. That has to be there, and the machinery is there to take that into account. There are the arguments about how well we go about reporting family violence. There are also arguments—and I have seen this in cases brought to me by advocates—about how effectively family violence is considered in individual cases. That consideration has to be there and it has to be objective, based on reason and with the capacity to validate someone's concerns. If not, those concerns emerge as a tactical argument; as a positioning proposition; as a card to be played, because it is seen to be advantageous, by one party in what may already be a combative dispute over the future care arrangements for children. Those cards should be played where it is valid and reasonable to do so. If the reporting framework for family violence and abuse is inadequate to provide for that card to be a verifiable assertion, rather than an assertion that cannot be backed up or is contested by others with an understanding of the family circumstance, then you need to consider carefully how much weight you give that card. This bill does not seek to strengthen reasonable concern about violence and threats to the child or the parent as a fundamental consideration in the wellbeing of the child and the family unit; rather, it seeks to redefine it in a way that I fear is unsafe. The coalition's amendments to this bill are reasonable. I urge the government to take account of them, realising that it is not always the law but may be the way— (Time expired) 12:26 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson I rise to speak in support of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. Family violence is an issue I desire to help address during my term as the member for Robertson, because family violence impacts on so many families—way too many families—in my own electorate and, indeed, across the entire nation. As we in this country move forward to addressing this critical issue, I see this legislation as an important element in increasing the safety, health and wellbeing of families. Nothing affects the fabric of that most vital unit in society—the family—more than instances of domestic violence. This government and preceding Australian governments need to be commended for the public awareness campaigns that have been enacted on domestic violence. Nobody could deny that many Australians still remember the Violence Against Women—Australia Says No advertisements. That campaign was the beginning of a public discussion about what, sadly, was a dirty little family secret for too many years in too many families. Those advertisements did raise in the public consciousness a sense that domestic violence is completely socially unacceptable. But, despite the effectiveness of these campaigns in raising awareness, raising awareness is not always enough to change behaviour. Sadly, violence within families continues to be a significant issue for the Australian community. Regrettably, in my electorate of Robertson we are not immune from family violence issues—a significant problem does exist. Information about domestic violence is communicated to me by passionate community workers, and I am particularly mindful of a recent visit to a women's refuge in my area during which I saw women and children who had fled, in the most difficult circumstances, from fear and long periods of suffering. Information about domestic violence has also been communicated to me by men in my community, who have spoken particularly of the psychological harm that some of them have come to through long periods of acrimony. It has also been communicated clearly to me by people working in the law, who often provide counselling as well as legal advice to people in critically dangerous situations. I am aware of the good work of all these people in engaging with the issue and practically supporting people who need assistance. I am particularly mindful of the work that the legal profession does to bridge the gaps in areas that social services are sometimes unable to bridge. It is clear to me that much more work needs to be done in order to address the issue of domestic violence. I am pleased that this parliament is being proactive in this area. A critical way to be effective is to reform family law to ensure that family violence is addressed through the law and that the safety of children is prioritised. This bill follows from the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 enacted by the previous government. The shared responsibility amendments represented a progressive law reform that satisfied the notion that children benefit from being raised by both parents wherever that is practical. Indeed, the development of family relationships centres has had an immense and positive impact on the Central Coast. This is an area where I sincerely believe that the previous government deserves credit. Yet, despite the developments of recent years, the effect on children from violence in the home and within families remains a grave concern. In my view, family violence issues are inadequately addressed by the Family Law Act in its current form. I believe that this bill is one means through which these concerns can be addressed. I say this because the issues of family violence against children and domestic violence will not be solved by one piece of legislation alone. Rather, it requires a long-standing commitment by governments on both sides of the political divide to change any remaining cultural sentiments about such violence being acceptable and to put in place instruments that help us progress to better outcomes for all young Australians and their families. The aim of this bill is to ensure that the safety of children is a priority when parenting matters are determined under the Family Law Act 1975. It remains an ideal for parenting responsibilities to be shared between both parents in the event of a relationship break-up. This bill, however, ensures that the Family Law Act better emphasises that the safety of children must always be the first priority when determining such parenting matters. This bill also aims to send a loud and clear message that all forms of family violence and child abuse are unacceptable. One of the key means in which this act achieves this is by changing and expanding the definitions of abuse and family violence to ones that are more appropriate for the purpose of the Family Law Act. The definitions contained in this bill are much more clear and comprehensive. They provide a far more appropriate standard of what should be considered by the courts to be abuse and family violence. As a former high school teacher, I understand that a stable childhood, free of abuse and family violence, is essential in ensuring children reach their potential. As many of my colleagues in the teaching profession across this nation would acknowledge, schools are the sites at which a lot of the trauma of family violence is discovered. The reporting conditions that demand teachers to link people into the kind of care that they need is a big advance from the time I started in that profession. While I am aware that there are inspiring exceptions of remarkably resilient young children who do survive this, and I do not want to increase the sense of victimhood that can sometimes gather around this issue, we do know that there are long-lasting impacts on children who are affected by abuse and family violence, and the outcomes can indeed be tragic. Our understanding of the types of abuse, including our understanding of mental health and wellbeing, has led to a much more robust definition of what abuse is. The definition of abuse in this bill includes causing a child serious psychological harm by subjecting or exposing the child to family violence. This definition also includes the serious neglect of a child. These two definitions of abuse are not currently included in the Family Law Act, yet I think that Australians absolutely concur with that definition. I am sure that nobody would deny that the definition contained in this bill constitutes what a reasonable person in the street would consider to be family violence. The current definition of family violence in the Family Law Act is only one sentence and it concerns violent actions towards a person that causes another family member to be reasonably concerned about their safety. I genuinely believe that the definition proposed in this bill is a far more comprehensive and appropriate one that captures the sorts of situations we hear about in our community and enables better resolution in the interests of children. The definition includes a list of instances that constitute family violence. This list is not exhaustive and it is not intended to restrict the court—and that is a critical issue that needs to be on the record. It does, however, ensure that the definition of family violence is wider and includes a variety of activities that are not considered to be physical violence. One category in this list is: … unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or his or her child, at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support … Sadly, I have met a woman who was a victim of this kind of neglect and control by a partner who kept her on $10 a week. It is an impossible situation. I firmly believe that denying a family member financial support, denying a family member their liberty or preventing a family member from maintaining connections with their family and culture are all actions that clearly constitute family violence and demonstrate a lack of understanding and acceptance of the core provisions of our democracy—that is, equality and freedom. I am proud to be a member of a government that firmly recognises that this needs to be developed. Family law has long been a difficult area of law because of the need to deal with sensitive issues and balance competing interests which directly affect families. All situations involving family law are unique; you cannot have a one-size-fits-all solution. There is, however, one principle that I will always support and which I believe is expressed in this bill: a care for the future health, safety and well-being of children. That must always be the most important priority of family law in matters involving children. This bill strengthens the obligation of family law advisers to prioritise the safety of children. This is an important amendment because, whilst the role of an adviser, such as a legal practitioner, is to get the best outcome for their client, this must not occur at the expense of the safety of children in family law matters. Under this legislation, advisers in family law matters are obliged to inform and encourage their clients to act in the best interests of their child. This includes the requirement that the adviser must inform the person that they should regard the interests of the child as a paramount consideration. Additionally, the adviser must inform the person that the child's best interests are met when the child is protected from physical and psychological harm. Advisers themselves have no power to compel a client to act in a particular way, yet legal advisers should definitely be obliged to discuss these matters with their clients, even if it is an incidental discussion on these issues when providing advice can lead to a more positive outcome for children and young people. I have a deep respect for people who work in family law and in organisations that aim to assist families. These include solicitors and their staff, family relationship counsellors, mediators and family law consultants and workers in refuges. All of the people who work with those who are vulnerable play a part, but I am particularly mindful of people who work in the family law courts. These occupations are difficult because lawyers and their staff are dealing with people who are often aggrieved about a particular situation involving their family. Recently, an event took place in my electorate concerning an innovative program regarding domestic violence. This program is called the Integrated Domestic and Family Violence Service, which is a partnership between the New South Wales Police, local government and various community organisations. The aim of the program is to provide an integrated response to issues concerning domestic and family violence and to ensure that cases are managed in a manner that provides parties with support when dealing with family violence. This includes providing families with support to navigate themselves through the services designed to assist them to recover, and often people lack the agency to negotiate that territory without support during times of crisis, particularly in a context of acrimony or if they have suffered the loss of self-esteem that follows being subjected to psychological and physical harm. It often takes a long time to recover from domestic violence, and this is even more complicated for families when children are involved. Often people find it difficult to get the help they needed, and the time period following a traumatic event is one of high risk. It is in this period when support is often lacking that the Integrated Domestic and Family Violence Service will attempt to coordinate support. These innovative programs require a strong and appropriate Commonwealth family law framework in order to be effective. On the Central Coast, the Central Coast Community Legal Centre plays a vital role in providing family law advice to people who would otherwise have difficulty accessing it. The legal centre broadly supports the bill and the submission made to the Senate inquiry by the Women's Legal Service. I await the findings of the Senate inquiry as to any changes that may be made to this bill. I am very proud of the Australian Family Law Act, which provides for a comprehensive and progressive system of family law. I am also proud of the progressive amendments to the Family Law Act, which have provided appropriate reform and have ensured that legal issues that have arisen have been addressed. Whilst the integrative solution is fundamental as a response to family violence, the role of family law legislation is to prevent it. Of course, this government, despite the utmost desire, sadly cannot prevent all domestic and family violence. Despite this, as a parliament we can better ensure that the safety and wellbeing of children is of the utmost importance when parenting decisions are made. As a parliament, we can better ensure that safer parenting arrangements for children are promoted when there are child abuse and family violence concerns. If we believe that the will of the Australian people, as expressed in this parliament, is to prevent to the best of our ability domestic and family violence, then we will support this legislation and enable it to be enacted into law. I commend the bill to the House. 12:41 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan I welcome the opportunity to make some comments today on the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. As members of parliament, when we meet with our constituents it is rare that we meet people who are in a more tense, difficult or even extreme situation emotionally than those who come to speak to us about problems with broken marriages and relationships, particularly where that impacts upon relationships with children from the marriage or relationship. Also, the media reminds us, too frequently, that there are occasions where kidnapping and violence towards children are linked to relationship breakdowns. We all cannot imagine why anyone would choose to harm a child as a result of these sorts of breakdowns within families and relationships. For us, this means that we must legislate and examine every opportunity for reform so that parents and couples have options for the best support and so that levels of enmity and stress can never be factors in the fate of children. That is why in 2005 and 2006 I applauded the changes that the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, introduced into this place under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. In that legislation the first 15 family relationship centres were provided for, including the one that operates in Joondalup, not far north of Cowan. The legislation also provided for 50 new services, including 33 early intervention services, which commenced delivering effective relationship services for families. These were the centrepiece of the $397 million family law reform package designed to address the reality that one million children had a parent living elsewhere than with them and that one in four of the children in separated families saw their non-resident parent once a year or not at all. In 2006, 51,375 divorces were granted, according to ABS figures. In 2007, there was a big drop down to 47,963. I believe that is the biggest drop in recent history. In the concern to reduce the adversarial nature of divorce proceedings, particularly where they involve child custody, family support services were set up nationwide to provide dispute resolution services before divorce cases go to court. These services were set up as not just an entry point to the family law system but to provide case assessments, referrals and practical assistance to parents and also guidance and assistance before there were significant problems in relationships. The initiative, as I said, commenced with 15 family relationship centres and 33 early intervention services, including men and family relationship services, family relationship counselling, family relationship education and skills training services and specialised family violence services. There were also post-separation services, including four services under the Contact Orders Program, seven children's contact services and six family dispute resolution services. As I said before, the family relationship centres were designed to assist families in strengthening their relationships, providing support and assistance to people in all stages of relationships, including marriage, parenting and the difficult times around separation. It was said at the time that these centres and the initiatives overall were designed to assist families throughout their relationships and not just to assist them through separation and divorce. Certainly I have met many people who have been assisted in achieving workable parenting arrangements through these initiatives, which have helped parents maintain contact with their children. As the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, said at the time of these changes, the changes: … reflected the Government's determination to ensure the right of children to grow up with the love and support of both of their parents…. We want to help parents sit down with each other and talk about what is best for their children, rather than immediately entering into the adversarial legal system. However, today I wish to direct my remarks toward this bill, the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I of course welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate, because I am committed to an outcome of better and more functional legislation to assist my constituents in these family law matters. Yet I would say that there are parts of this bill that are a step backwards and not the step forward we should always be looking for. To begin, I would question the need to insert the new subsection to section 60CC of the Family Law Act. Already section 60B lays out the best interests of the child and, in conjunction with section 60CA, clearly demonstrates interpretation of the best interests of the child. What the government seeks to do here is to insert a series of subjective examples of behaviour into the Family Law Act. I do not see the justification of trying to prescribe details for multiple circumstances, when the paramountcy of the best interests of the child is already enshrined in the existing legislation. With regard to identification, inquiry and reporting on family violence and child abuse, what I would say is that across this nation we are used to seeing stories of children at risk. The risk can be the risk of violence, the risk of neglect, abuse or sexual abuse. In our streets, in our suburbs, in our towns and in our communities there are children at risk right now. There are children who are being abused, and that is a reality. What is also true, certainly in my view, is that anyone and everyone who is aware or who suspects that children are at risk are duty bound to take action. It is not right that we sit back and merely say, 'There is an agency that is responsible for that.' I reject as well ideas such as, 'The court can decide that, so I do not need to be involved.' These are wrong. It is without doubt the responsibility and the duty of any adult to do what needs to be done to ensure the safety of children in these circumstances. That being said, there is still a requirement for an examination of how legislation can achieve improvements to identifying and responding to pertinent safety concerns. It is right that child welfare agencies, children's lawyers, dispute resolution practitioners, family consultants and family counsellors will have their participation and accountability improved by this bill. I am therefore happy that this is part of this bill. What I am very unhappy about is the proposed changes regarding false allegations of abuse and violence. Under the Ruddock reforms, section 117AB of the act provided for mandatory cost orders where a party knowingly made a false allegation or statement in the proceedings. This very important reform was introduced by the Howard government and it was greatly welcomed by the people of Australia, particularly if they were affected by court matters where false accusations were made as a bargaining point. To me this change is not a good one, but it shows the great Labor traditions where individual responsibility and accountability are discouraged. If you look at this sort of situation carefully, it is very clear what should happen. The scenario is this: a person makes an allegation that one of the parents or a former partner has abused the children. Sometimes these are allegations of the worst kind, and I mean, of course, child sexual assault. That allegation must be investigated and, if proven, there should be a lengthy custodial sentence for the person responsible. However, if the allegation is not proven, then consideration should be given to perjury charges or defamation charges against the person who made the allegation originally. It is one or the other, child molester or liar, and there should be accountability for the guilty, based on the proof of such offences. Obviously these matters need to be proved, and among the proofs is the concept of intent. That being said, this was not the way that was chosen, but instead a determination of court costs was made for those who were found to have made vexatious allegations. This is clearly covered in the stringent requirements of section 117AB, where it applies only if a person has knowingly given false evidence. But instead this legislation will once again take the requirement to prove allegations away. This is a terrible error that will need to be fixed by us when we return to government unless it can be amended today. I think that what is proposed here represents a trampling of the rights of one party and it will potentially damage the relationship between children and one of their parents. I also take this opportunity to express my concern with the repeal of the friendly parent provision. I believe that, when you examine the provisions of section 60CC, you will see that they provide for courts to determine the interests of the child in such family law matters. It is my view that it is all there in section 60CC(4). It has been said that the reason this particular amendment has been brought forward is that the existing provisions discouraged the reporting of violence, but there was in fact no statistical information to suggest that this was the case. Although the Chisholm report made that assertion, the Family Law Council described that criticism as not much more than gossip. I would also say that the criminal justice system, and in some ways the whole justice system, is the focus of many complaints in my door knocking. Ultimately the view of so many of my constituents is that judges and magistrates do not reflect community standards or expectations. I suppose that, if you are used to being pretty much god in a courtroom for many years and you only live in the best suburbs, the workings of the real world for the majority of law-abiding Australians are something that happens at a great distance from your personal reality. Perhaps those who are so often described as learned need to be a little more experienced with the outer suburbs of our cities. The trouble with the amendments in the bill that the government is bringing forward is that they seek to unwisely unwind the objectives of the 2006 reforms. It was certainly the case that those reforms helped to build strong healthy relationships, prevent separation and encourage greater involvement by both parents in their children's lives after separation, whilst also protecting children from violence and abuse. They were there to help separated parents agree on what is best for their children rather than litigating, through the provision of useful information, advice and effective dispute resolution services, and also to establish a highly visible entry point to other services and to help families to access those other services. I think that when you look at the figures on the reductions in divorces immediately following the 2006 reforms, despite what others may say, there is certainly an indication that there was great value in what was achieved by the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Phillip Ruddock, and the government. I will conclude by saying that I have every confidence in the reforms of 2006. I cannot help but feel the attacks on these reforms are based on an ideology detached from the realities of real Australia, out in the suburbs where most Australians live. The changes to the friendly parent provisions and, most unhelpful of all, the changes to the cost order provisions represent a decision by the government to accept the ideology and not look at these matters in a balanced way. A lot of people in this country will come to regret this matter if we cannot achieve a better result when the coalition's amendments come to be voted upon. What the government should do is listen to reason and not ideology. 12:55 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Unlike those opposite, I rise to support the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This is an issue that involves all Australians and one that should be addressed well ahead of politics. Children are the future of this nation and they are our most vulnerable asset. I say that as a person who has three children and is now very proudly the grandfather of another five. Children deserve to have the opportunity to grow up in a happy and loving home. They deserve to be able to feel safe and it is unfathomable that there are children who do not enjoy these basic rights. Some are subject to abuse and very often witness a parent being the victim of violence. These acts are intolerable and it is the responsibility of government and of the whole community to intervene to protect those who are vulnerable. This is not the time to be considering legal loopholes, as the previous speaker was suggesting to us; this is the time to ensure that we put the rights of children first. This government is devoted to protecting and enforcing the rights of minors in a way that mirrors the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 2006 the government received a number of reports regarding the family law reforms. These included Evaluation of the 2006 family law reformsby the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Professor Richard Chisholm's Family courts violence review, and the Family Law Council's Improving responses to family violence in the family law system:an advice on the interaction of family violence and family law issues. Each of these reports examined how the current family law framework addressed family violence based issues. These reports indicated that the system that was currently in place needed to do more to protect the welfare of those who have experienced, or are at risk of experiencing, abuse and violence. The Australian Institute of Family Studies reported that two-thirds of separated mothers and half of separated fathers have experienced emotional or physical abuse by their partner. Given the fact that presently in this country there is one divorce for every three marriages, if you apply that statistic to this arrangement, this is of great concern. We are just talking about marriages and not about partnerships. This is a major issue for us when you consider that one in five separated parents have an ongoing contact with their ex-spouse and have indicated a number of safety concerns. In all that we have to put the issues to do with the child first. As the Family Law Council states, victims of family violence have a higher chance of being treated for psychiatric problems. The council reports that there is an increasing prevalence of attempted suicide, alcohol abuse and homelessness. The government believes that a child has the right to have access to a relationship with both parents. When parents can cooperate, particularly if they live close to each other, shared parenting responsibilities have been shown to be effective. I get to see that with my own family. Regrettably, my younger son's relationship terminated and his daughter, Kiarni, has been at the middle of all that. It is fortunate that both parents have been able to work something out constructively whereby my granddaughter does not miss out on the love and attention of both parents and, indeed, of the grandparents. This is a thing that we need to try to achieve. This is every child's right. Health and welfare within the family unit is of the utmost importance and the safety of children is, in my opinion, paramount. With this in mind, this amendment will allow the family law system to appropriately respond when issues of child abuse or domestic violence arise. It will further strengthen the role of the Family Court. Specifically, the change will prioritise the safety of the child and strengthen the adviser obligations. In addition, it will allow the Family Court access to a greater range of evidence related to abuse and family violence. This part is critical: the additional evidence is to ensure that safe parenting arrangements are made and enforceable. Commonwealth, state and territory child protection authorities will now play a greater role in the judicial process and they will actively participate in family law proceedings when requested. The bill will also change the definition of 'family violence' and 'abuse'. The purpose is simple: it is necessary to ensure that we capture the exact meaning of harmful behaviour. We need to guarantee there is no confusion about the behaviour that society says it will not tolerate. As recommended by the Australian and New South Wales law reform commissions, family violence definition encapsulates assault, sexual assault, stalking, emotional as well as psychological and economic abuse. Within that framework, abuse in relation to a child now extends to include severe psychological harm that results from exposure to violence and neglect. To improve the effectiveness of this system and to correct the anomalies, the bill also makes some technical amendments to the Family Law Act and the Bankruptcy Act 1996. Earlier this year the government released the proposed changes in a report for public scrutiny. The response was overwhelming and very much positive, in support of the changes which are being proposed. The reason why that has occurred is that people understand that we do need to show that domestic violence and child abuse will not be tolerated. That should not be something that occurs in Australian homes, and we—not necessarily government—as community leaders in a modern society should all pledge to work to stamp it out. For that reason this issue is so important. The amendments being proposed by the opposition, given my reading of them, in effect water down, not strengthen, what is in the legislation. The opposition proposes that a definition of violence be removed from subjectivity and it wants to repeal the mandatory cost order provisions of the bill. It wants to do this against the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission, numerous government reports—which I have already mentioned—and the Family courts violence review. This is not some form of political game. We do not come here to put a piece of amendment legislation through just because it needs reviewing. There is a need for this. In my electorate I sponsored a student from the ANU, under the intern program, to produce a report for me on domestic violence in the south-west of Sydney. Many of the things that this piece of legislation is intended to deal with were actually discovered by Ms Zara Maxwell-Smith in her report, which I will endeavour to table in this parliament in due course. I think it is a credit to the ANU that this program exists. It is also something that I could actually target to ensure that we did have constructive and contemporary analysis occurring in the south-west of Sydney in respect of abuse and domestic violence and its impact on our community. One cannot believe that protecting child victims and other victims of family violence should meet with anything other than bipartisan support. This is not a time for playing political games and arguing about the position of authorities on this. I would have thought that it would be noted that what has been tabled so far, given the support for each of the law reform commission reports that have been tabled as well as the Family courts violence review, are there because there is an issue at law. They are there because those bodies believe that children deserve move, that they deserve greater protection in this respect. So I think we need to show, as parliamentarians, our best endeavours to get the right outcomes for children. This is not necessarily going to be palatable to every defence lawyer out there, and I will let them paddle their own canoe in that respect, but I will stand up and talk about what is good for children. You do not need to be a leading social scientist to work out that there is certainly a link between poor development outcomes and children who have been exposed to family violence, although I do know that there is an abundance of research around in that respect. I represent a low socioeconomic area in Sydney, and what is being proposed here is very real. I know that in my electorate and in the surrounding electorates issues of domestic and family violence remain high. Despite all the good work that police are doing in reducing other crime indicators around the place, everything that I get to see shows that domestic violence and family violence remain stubbornly high. The product of those abuses does impact on a child's development, and they then take that into their maturity. This is not something that we can sit down and pretend to be lawyers about and show all the niceties of black-letter law. This is something that we want to get right, because our motivation in doing that is to do the right thing to protect the rights and the future of children. We need to ensure that we are talking about this not only in this chamber but also in our electorates. As I say, I have looked at the various statistics in my electorate and they are something that I am not proud of and I am determined to do something about. When I was first elected as the member for Fowler, I identified the issues of domestic violence and family violence as something I wanted to draw greater attention to. I do not want to point the finger at people and say, 'That's really a state policing matter,' or a matter for the Family Court or for somebody else. This is something for our community. What is being proposed here is to give a greater opportunity for the authorities and for the Family Court to do something, in a significant endeavour to give children a better outcome in life. It is for that reason that I support the bill. I certainly oppose the position taken by the opposition on it. I encourage them to rethink their position and not simply propose amendments for the sake of it. I encourage them to refocus their attention on what is right for the development of young people in our society. 13:09 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra I very much respect the member for Werriwa and would normally applaud much of what he has to say. The only matter about which I want to comment positively in relation to his remarks is the importance of children—the importance of ensuring that children are safe and secure but also ensuring that children's broader rights are also recognised. It is a question of balance. I am afraid that some comments that my leader made relevant to another issue are about to be equally relevant here. My leader said recently in relation to unauthorised boat arrivals that 'John Howard identified a problem and found a solution and Labor found a solution and has created a problem'. The Family Law Act has always been a very delicate issue. From the clients that I had to deal with when I was a young solicitor I know sometimes how entrenched certain points of view are and how determined people are to get even with their partner sometimes, whom they see has in some way let them down. I have seen the situation where, often, children are pawns as these frustrations work their way through. Some of my colleagues in this parliament previously found complaints about family law issues occupying an enormous amount of their time, as people came to their local member of parliament to talk about issues relating to the difficulties in getting support, as some people found that the outcome that had been determined in relation to children was not to their liking and they would not support them. They found that people were very unhappy about the courts and unhappy about delays, and there seemed to be little effort to try to resolve issues before they came to court. Even my own profession sometimes could be engaged in these issues in ways which I consider quite unsatisfactory. Some lawyers are very happy to be able to fight every issue for you to your last dollar. One group of lawyers for whom I came to develop a very high regard were those who were described as 'collaborative' practitioners. They were saying, 'We are prepared to work your issues through with a practitioner who sees things in a like way to obtain a solution, and if we can't find it and you still want to fight, then you might have to find another lawyer.' I must say that collaborative lawyers are under a lot of pressure sometimes from those who see it differently. I often experienced it myself 40 years ago with practitioners who, if you wanted to work things through in a collaborative way, would simply roll over you at every point. My colleagues found this and they were frustrated by it. The Every picture tells a story report was writtenby members of parliament from both sides and, as a result of the deliberation of the report and the consideration of it by the parliament and the former government, certain steps were taken. I think it is important in this debate to understand the fundamental principle that was involved because, I must say, it drove me as I drove these reforms. That is that these reforms should be not about the parents but about the children. I am sure that in this debate everybody is talking about the children, but sometimes it is put only from one perspective. Sometimes, when they put it as being from one perspective, they ignore the fact that that perspective was included in the legislative reforms. There were two principal instructions to those who were going to deal with these issues were to have regard to the rights of children. One was their right to be safe and secure. The legislation was never about ignoring family violence, but it was about recognising another right that I am not hearing mentioned by my colleagues, and that is the right of a child, provided they are safe, to know both of their parents. I have found over a long period any number of people who, because of the way in which these disputes have been worked through by parents, have denied a child the right to know the other parent because they felt so strongly about the way in which they have been disappointed and who are aggrieved that they have never had the opportunity to know that parent. You think about it and the importance of it: provided the children are safe and secure they should be able to know both their father and their mother. And if role models have anything to do with future upbringing, isn't it important, because it is often the father who is denied any contact, that there be a male role model, particularly for young boys, in relation to their upbringing? Isn't that important? If you can do it, shouldn't that be the principle that is guiding you? Where I think this government is creating a problem for itself in the future with regard to this legislation is that it will get these matters back into the courts as a matter of priority. Some of the legislation that we put before the former parliament was designed to deal with issues relating to the way in which legal proceedings are conducted. But our principal objective was, where we could, to get matters out of the courts. Before people even started their contest, there was an effort to try to work these things through collaboratively. And we did it very deliberately. We funded family relationship centres right around Australia. Before you could even start to litigate in relation to children, you had to have made some effort to try to resolve those issues. Not every issue will be resolved; not every child will be safe. There are situations in which abuse occurs where children may be subjected to violence but, as I said earlier, regard always has to be had to that. Where you can work it through and where a child has a continuing relationship with a parent, it is so much more positive and so much better. To me, one of the most disappointing aspects of recent funding decisions by the government and the very clear signal that they are sending about where they expect this matter to go is that funding for family relationship centres and their activities will be reduced and legal aid funding for family disputes will be increased. That is against an expectation, I suspect, that the government believe there will be increased litigation. Why else would they be doing it? It seems to me that this legislation that we are discussing is very significant for the Australian people. I do not think that the reforms which were introduced in 2006 ought be unnecessarily undone without very clear and objective information that suggests that we have been going in the wrong direction. My understanding is that the amount of litigation we have seen in relation to family disputes has declined. Why would you want to change that? Why would you want to reintroduce provisions that would enable people to make allegations which are proven later to be incorrect, blatantly wrong, deliberately fabricated, designed to mislead even a court and where there is no capacity— Mr Billson 1K6 No consequences. Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 no consequences, as my colleague says, to deal with it. Yet this legislation is about stripping that away. This legislation is about changing the way in which issues relating to violence that may impact upon children are seen. It is about broadening their definition, widening the range of claims that can be made and giving people many more issues which they can dispute. I have a great deal of trust in our legal system. I have met a lot of judges of the Family Court; I know they come with the very best of intentions to work these things through. We have a magistracy that has been playing that positive role. I do not believe any court would have come to a view whereby they would not have taken into account these issues properly before them, that are going to impact upon a child detrimentally, under the regime that was in place. My view about those matters is that we need to have very clearly in our minds the point I made that children's interests are not only in being safe. It is a prerequisite that they should be, but to be denied some contact with your mother or your father because somebody is about wanting, essentially, to punish a person whom they have been in a loving relationship with but now feel aggrieved by is the worst possible outcome. We have seen children removed from one part of the world to another in order that the other parent has no continuing contact. We see people wanting to move great distances from where they have lived, ostensibly on the basis of being closer to other family members, which deprives a former partner of any relationship. I know that these are difficult issues to deal with, but my view has been that the measures that we put in place got the balance right. In my judgment the changes that the government is proposing will shift that balance in a way which I regard as being most unsatisfactory. We are proposing that in relation to the broadened definition of family violence there needs to be some caution. We are concerned at the repeal of the friendly parent provisions. We are concerned at the stripping away of the courts; the capacity in terms of costs to deal with false allegations of abuse and violence is being taken away. For that reason, we will be moving amendments. There will be divisions on them and we will seek to ensure, by referring this legislation for review by a parliamentary committee, that there are not other unforeseen consequences. We do this, very deliberately, to help the government, to ensure that they do not move forward on this matter and create a problem for themselves and the nation by pursuing measures without a proper need and at a time when the measures that the Howard government implemented appear to have been achieving a very important objective. 13:24 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak in support of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. The member for Berowra has been in parliament for close to 40 years and I have been here for only four years but, with respect, he is simply wrong on issue after issue. Before I was elected to this place I was a family law specialist from 1996. I practised for nearly a quarter of a century in that jurisdiction, from the Magistrates Court in suburban Brisbane and other places to the High Court of Australia, where I have done cases involving family law from the most complex property settlements, to Hague convention cases, to the most egregious claims that have ever been made in relation to family violence and child abuse, to the most difficult cases involving relocation. Some of the cases I have done were reported in the Full Court of the Family Court Cases; cases involving parenting orders on an interim basis—cases like the Cowling case, which set the law for this type of matter. So I come with some experience on this issue, and the member for Berowra is simply wrong on issue after issue—a man of straw on numerous occasions. This is about creating a safer and fairer family law system and prioritising the needs of children. More than 400 submissions were received in relation to that, and 73 per cent expressed support for the measures. This is an indication of strong community support in relation to this matter. The safety of children is prioritised, with clarification of the meaning of domestic violence issues; 'family violence' and 'abuse' are the terms in the legislation. It strengthens advisers' obligation, ensures the courts have better access to evidence and makes it easier for state and territory child protection authorities to participate—or 'intervene', as we used to call it—in relation to family law proceedings. There is no dispute between the two sides of politics about the fact that we need to provide for the protection and safety of children and that a child needs to have a meaningful relationship with both parents—that is in the best interests of the child where it is safe for that to occur. It is important to recognise that the Family Law Act does state those things. Section 60CA says that the court, whether it be the Federal Magistrates Court or the Family Court, has to consider 'the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.' Section 60B in part VII sets out the objects of the division with respect to looking after children: ensuring children have proper and adequate parenting; making sure that parents fulfil their obligations and responsibilities to children; and making sure that children have contact with other people who are important to their care, welfare and development. When a court looks at these types of matters in section 60CC, the court looks at a hierarchy of considerations. We are changing the primary considerations to make sure, front and centre, that the need to protect the child from abuse, neglect and family violence is the highest priority possible. We are elevating that where there is an inconsistency with the need to have a meaningful relationship with both parents. I cannot understand why those opposite do not see that as important. The friendly parent provision also, in my long experience in the Family Court, from time to time does dissuade people from making arrangements which are in the best interests of a child and forces parents at times to consent to orders which they do not believe are in the best interests of children, handing a child over to a circumstance where that child may be exposed to abuse, neglect and family violence. Violence and abuse are catalysts for family breakdowns and they can often continue afterwards. Violence or abuse is unacceptable wherever it occurs and certainly in relation to children. The long-term damage as a result of family violence cannot be underestimated. Evaluation of the so-called reforms of 2006 has been undertaken. These things have been looked at. We have three reports, one by a very learned former judge, Professor Richard Chisholm AM, the Family courts violence review—I have spoken to Richard Chisholm about his report a number of times; I met him in Parliament House, actually, to talk about the issue; the Australian Institute of Family Studies' Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms; and the Family Law Council's Improving responses to family violence in the family law system.With respect to the member for Berowra, the Howard government did get it wrong with many of the changes. Without social research, and with a knee-jerk reaction to a minority of men's rights groups, they responded in the way they did, fettering judicial discretion and creating a legislative pathway with respect to shared parenting—and I have personal views on those issues. As a result of their changes a culture of expectation developed that it was worthwhile for children to continue regular contact with a parent, even if it meant exposing that child to abuse, neglect and family violence. Any lawyer who practised regularly in this jurisdiction would know that that was the case. Time and again, parents felt compelled to agree to contact arrangements for fear of running foul of the 'friendly parent provision' imposed by the 2006 changes. The task confronting any court when allegations of family violence or abuse are made is daunting—even more so in the pressure cooker of an interim hearing, usually held shortly after separation, often without the benefit of a detailed affidavit or cross-examination and many times without a detailed welfare report indicating what the children's wishes are, what arrangements were undertaken before separation and what recommendations psychologists or social workers might have made. The ramifications of terminating all contact between a parent and child are many and long-term. It should only be done as a last resort. The balance needs to be struck in favour of protecting children, and that is where the previous legislation failed. It is restored by this legislation. Now, for the first time, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child compelling the court to consider the convention in deciding matters concerning children is included in the legislation. That is important in recognising the rights of children. It is not about the parents' rights; it is about the rights of the children. The bill elevates the primary consideration of protecting a child from abuse, neglect and family violence over the benefit of having a meaningful relationship with a parent where there is an inconsistency. The bill broadens the definition of family violence to what I think is in tune with community expectations. The member for Berowra would have us believe that it is only family violence if, indeed, it is defined as family violence. In fact family violence, as people know, occurs in many ways. That includes not just physical assault but dominating, controlling behaviours; stalking; friendship isolation; familial isolation; emotional manipulation; financial abuse; harassment; and cultural isolation. We need to protect children from these types of activities. We need to protect spouses as well, if we can. Expanding the definition of abuse and family violence and imposing on court personnel and independent children's lawyers the obligation to report on child abuse to state and territory departments of child safety is a worthy thing. 'Abuse' should include serious psychological harm and exposure to family violence. The bill imposes on those involved in family disputes to make the protection of children the paramount consideration. Prioritising child protection is absolutely crucial. As I have said, the bill overcomes the reluctance of many parents and their lawyers to report family violence for the fear of being considered an 'unfriendly parent'. That provision is found in the relevant sections of the Family Law Act where a court will consider them. They are part of what I would call the 'additional considerations'. Often I have seen parents struggle with this provision. Lawyers, judges and federal magistrates also really wrestle with this provision. The 'friendly parent provision' is revoked by this bill, meaning children are less likely to run the risk of abuse, neglect and family violence. I believe the balance is back with this bill and, once again, the best interests of children are front and centre. Section 4 of the Family Law Act defines abuse to be: (a) an assault, including a sexual assault, of the child which is an offence under a law, written or unwritten, in force in the State or Territory in which the act constituting the assault occurs; Another subsection further defines abuse of a child as: (b) a person involving the child in a sexual activity with that person or another person in which the child is used, directly or indirectly, as a sexual object by the first-mentioned person or the other person, and where there is unequal power in the relationship between the child and the first-mentioned person. I am sure that the average person in the community thinks that abuse is far more broad than that simple definition. The current legislation states: "Family violence" means conduct, whether actual or threatened, by a person towards, or towards the property of, a member of the person's family that causes that or any other member of the person's family reasonably to fear for, or reasonably to be apprehensive about, his or her personal wellbeing or safety. Again, this is a very narrow definition that really does not reflect community standards. Broadening the definitions will help judicial officers to consider behaviours, including patterns of behaviour, within the factual context of a case—not simply whether someone has hit them, punched them or engaged in a physical sexual assault or physical harm perpetrated by fists, a baseball bat or an implement of any description. Broadening the definition will allow a court to look at the pattern of behaviour and focuses the judge or federal magistrate on that. The Family Law Council and the Australian Law Reform Commission have both recommended the removal of the semiobjective test of family violence so that the decision maker—for example, the court or a family dispute resolution practitioner—is required to consider the situation from the perspective of the victim. This is not something new. It is what happens when you talk about domestic violence laws at a state level—in my state of Queensland they are domestic violence laws; in other states they are apprehended violence laws. They consider what is happening from the victim's perspective: does the victim feel that he or she—and it is 'he' more often than people think—has been subject to harassment, intimidation or domestic violence or abuse? More often than not, from the victim's perspective, they feel they have. Over many years of legal practice I have seen thousands of people—both men and women—in tears when they cannot point to a circumstance in which someone has physically assaulted them but yet feel they have been abused in other ways—like not being able to dress in the morning without the man putting the clothes out and determining they particular clothes they wore. One woman said, 'I was not allowed to shower except in his presence.' Things like that are family violence and abuse. No-one would think they were not. I have seen cases where one person stopped a woman of religious faith from going to church. She wanted to go to church. One partner may stop the other from engaging in cultural pursuits—if they came from, say, a Samoan background but could not go to any Samoan cultural events because they were really an Australian, according to the other person. I have seen dozens and dozens of cases like that. This is a terrible form of domestic violence. It is a form of stalking if there is repeated harassment by phone calls. Broadening the definition allows the court to have a better grasp of what is going on. I heard the member for Berowra talking about getting rid of the relevant sections that deal with mandatory costs orders for false allegations. Will the repeal of section 117AB increase the number of false allegations? I think that is nonsense. There is strong support for the repeal of this from the legal profession and those who practise in family law. The courts have already considered, in the case of Claringbold and James in 2008, that section 117 is broad enough to deal with false statements, including false allegations and false denials. Indeed it is. Under section117(2A)(c), the court, in making a decision with respect to whether a cost order can be made, can look at the conduct of the parties to the proceedings in terms of their involvement in pleadings, discovery, particulars, inspections, answers to questions, admissions of fact, production of documents and similar matters. So it is broad enough already without section 117AB. This is a straw man put up by the member for Berowra—that is for sure. It is simply nonsense. Professor Richard Chisholm, in his report,Family courts violence review, recommends the repeal of section 117AB: … the law should try to encourage people to tell the truth without making, or appearing to make, any pre-judgment. The New South Wales Law Society is reported as saying that the very existence of section 117AB provides clear disincentive to parties making allegations. The Family Law Council and the family law section of the Law Council of Australia highlighted similar concerns. So what the member for Berowra says is simply nonsense. He does not understand the law. It has been over 40 years since he practised in the jurisdiction. He does not know how the law has moved on. His reforms of 2006 are not to be put in some gold plated bowl that says how wonderful they are. In fact they are wrong and should never have been done in the first place. (Time expired) 13:39 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I rise to speak on the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. The issues covered in this bill are of great personal interest to me but, more importantly, are of far greater concern to many members of my electorate of Bennelong. This is a topic that requires significant legislative improvement, as the current system has been shown time and again not to be fulfilling the objectives that were established by the law-makers who preceded us in this place. Firstly, I have concerns at what appears to be an illogical decision to have us debating and voting on a bill that has been referred to a Senate committee for inquiry. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has received over 200 submissions from individuals and community groups that have deep understandings of the issues involved. It strikes me as somewhat of an arrogant step by this government to bring on this debate before the Senate committee has reported back on its inquiry. Surely the use of all the information and tools available to us as legislators is more likely to result in the best outcome. It is the outcomes that should be focused on in speaking on this bill today. This bill effects a change in the law to expand the definition of family violence and remove costs orders on complainants making intentionally false allegations of family violence. Currently, family violence is seen as 'violence that exerts a reasonable fear for a family member's wellbeing or safety'. The new definition proposed under the amendment is much more subjective, adding 'violent, threatening or other behaviour that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful'. The examples added specifically include financial control, which may lead to unintended consequences where a child support payer makes application to the Child Support Agency or courts to reduce the level of child support payable. In such a circumstance, the payer is properly exercising their rights under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and yet would seem to be culpable of family violence under the new definition. This bill also seeks to remove the friendly parent provision, which currently requires family courts to consider the willingness of one parent towards facilitating the other to have a meaningful relationship with their child. The removal of this provision could lead to a situation where parents can effectively remove a previous partner from their life through the prevention of contact with their children. This would encourage parental alienation syndrome—the practice where one parent instigates and maintains conflict to harm a child's relationship with the other parent. The bill also proposes to remove mandatory costs orders where one party knowingly makes a false allegation or statement in the proceedings to gain a tactical advantage. Currently the court is able to implement financial penalties as a disincentive to this course of action. This proposed change will encourage fabricated allegations of violence or abuse, hearsay and uncorroborated allegations. The logic of removing these court orders is that they act as a disincentive for the disclosure of family violence. However, according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, more than two thirds of respondents to a survey disagreed with the proposition that the prospect of an adverse cost order has discouraged allegations of violence or child abuse that are genuinely held and/or are likely to be true. Parents in conflict too often refer to their rights as parents and the rights they have to have access to their child. This is the wrong focus. The Family Court makes it clear that it is the right of the child to have access to their parents. Breakdowns in relationships too often lead to a phase of adult war—logic and fairness are overridden by emotional issues. Inevitably, the child becomes the collateral damage. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The member is granted leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 4833 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Armenian Genocide 4833 13:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook This year, on 22 April, I attended with the member for Bennelong a function held by the Sydney Armenian community to mark the 96th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Today, as a member of this House, I join others in this place, and in parliaments around the world, to place on record that I believe the Armenian genocide was one of the greatest crimes against humanity. On 24 April 1915, as the Anzacs were preparing to go ashore at Gallipoli, nearby in Constantinople an attempt to eradicate the Armenian people began. At the end of the violence, which spread around the Ottoman empire, 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children had fallen victim to the genocide—a heinous act concealed under the cover of the war to end all wars. Four hundred Anzac prisoners of war bore witness to the atrocities. Australian Flying Corps captain Thomas White, who was captured in central Mesopotamia, wrote in his memoir, 'Armenians had sold their lives dearly.' Many countries have condemned the 1915 genocide at the hands of the Ottoman government. We do not seek to lay blame, this is not an indictment of the modern, secular, Turkish state that we know as a friend, but it is important that we recognise the Armenian genocide for what it was. This is one act we should never forget. Dare we allow it ever to be repeated. Victorian Government 4833 13:46 Mr MITCHELL M3E McEwen This morning I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of the Australian Education Union, and I rise today to show my support for their fight against the 'Failyou' Baillieu Liberal government in Victoria. As members of this place are all too aware, the Baillieu Liberal government is a pretty hopeless government. It has been dishonest, sneaky and arrogant and has back-flipped on its pre-election commitment to make Victorian teachers the highest paid in the country and on its commitment to the Victoria Police. The AEU has launched a campaign against the 'Failyou' government, and I urge everyone to get on board. The campaign is 'My School Needs', and it is a fantastic campaign. Some of the placards they have across schools read 'Buildings Not Backflips' and 'Budget Cuts Hurt Our Kids', but I know the members opposite do not really care about public education. One of my favourite parts of the campaign would have to be the formal notification to all coalition MPs that when visiting a school they must wear a red shirt. I look forward to seeing the Liberal member for Seymour, Cindy McLeish, wearing a red shirt at BER openings at our local schools. I look forward to seeing the Minister for Education, Martin Dixon—most schools would look forward to actually meeting him too—wearing his red T-shirt when he visits public schools. I cannot wait to see Ted in red. As we have always said in Victoria, better red than Ted! Egypt 4834 13:48 Mr NEVILLE KV5 Hinkler I call on this parliament, and through it the government, to encourage the new Egyptian administration to foster religious and social tolerance within its borders. Recently, sectarian violence has flared up in Egypt. There have been reports of attacks on Coptic Christians, with churches blown up and burned and followers killed and injured. According to media reports, at least 12 Christians have been murdered and hundreds more wounded. This violence must end. It would indeed be a cruel irony, if not a massive betrayal, if Egypt's new administration were to be more repressive than the former Mubarak government. Copts are culturally and historically part of Egypt. The rights and freedoms of religious minorities must be defended. To Australians who practise religious tolerance towards other faiths, religious and racial discrimination is particularly galling. We would not tolerate ill-treatment of any minority group in this country and we expect others to do likewise; hence, my call to the government to object in the strongest possible terms to the new interim Egyptian authorities. Launceston City Council Heritage Awards 4834 13:49 Mr LYONS M38 Bass I rise today to congratulate all of the winners in the recently announced Launceston City Council Heritage Awards. The council's Heritage Advisory Committee started the annual awards in 2008 to recognise people for sensitively restoring their heritage buildings. In a city such as Launceston, which has a rich heritage and many historic buildings, it is fantastic to see the preservation that is being recognised and rewarded. To that end, I praise and briefly mention each of the award winners: Robert Dusting, Janice Skiller, Kate and Alan Livermore, Altrex Investments, St James Anglican Church, Peter and Jane Patmore, Franklin House, Van Diemen Light Railway Society and Invermay Primary School. Invermay Primary School, which is 140 years old, deserves special mention. I was thrilled to note that their award-winning library and classroom upgrade was achieved through the Labor government's BER funding. This is another great success story for education, jobs and value for money in the BER projects in Tasmania. Indeed, the promotion of the value of heritage spaces in Launceston by all award winners and by Launceston City Council is to be commended. Once again, congratulations and well done! Gillard Government 4834 13:50 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley It is my melancholy duty to inform the House that the Gillard government has broken another promise. I am not talking about the Prime Minister's claim, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' It is the Assistant Treasurer's broken promise that he would not 'make life difficult for self-employed working people'. Has he failed. No slick-willy weasel words will forgive the Assistant Treasurer for breaking his promise. Not only has he unleashed organs of the Commonwealth to attack independent contractors and self-employed people—tasking the Taxation office, tasking the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner and tasking Fair Work Australia in a triple-cored push to stalk and terrorise independent contractors—but it gets worse. In this budget there is another measure of additional red tape and reporting requirements for those who dare to engage independent contractors. What we have learned is that, when the government talks about people contributing to the workforce, the only workers it understands are those who are employees—not an employer, not a self-employed person, not someone using their own wit and talent to gain wealth and opportunity in this country. Those people deserve support, not the nonsense and intimidation and the ridicule hatched up in secret meetings with unions by this government that is undermining the enterprising nature of Australians. One other thing: the government has been stung by its deregulation failures—one out for every 220 new regulations in. What has the Minister for Small Business done? He has tried to challenge the numbers. I say to Senator Sherry: check ComLaw for your facts; you stand condemned. (Time expired) Petition: Health and Hospitals 4835 13:52 Mrs D'ATH HVN Petrie I present a petition on behalf of certain citizens of and visitors to Tamborine Mountain, Queensland, and surrounding areas in relation to improving registered nurses pay and better per-bed funding. The principal petitioner is Ms Pamela Green from Eagle Heights. This has been to the Standing Committee on Petitions and has been approved. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of certain citizens of and visitors to Tamborine Mountain, Queensland, and surrounding areas Draws the attention of the House to: Our fear of ending our days in a nursing home sometimes lying or sitting in faeces and urine because nurses are too busy to answer our call-buttons quickly, particularly in the case of Agency nurses, struggling in an unfamiliar environment. We therefore ask the House to: (1) ensure that all registered nurses in nursing homes are paid the same as those in hospitals, thus lessening the difficulty in finding permanent staff and the need to use Agency nurses. (2) Provide greater per bed funding to agencies conducting nursing home services, so that there are sufficient staff to ensure that even when the inevitable emergencies arise, call buttons can still be answered in an acceptable time frame. Bear in mind that, while you know of these issues from the Nurses' Union, and from your own Health Workforce, this petition is from the point of view of potential and actual nursing home patients, who will be forming an ever-increasing proportion of the voting public as you free up hospital beds by providing alternative facilities such as more respite-care beds in nursing homes. from 1,141 citizens Petition received. Oromian Australians 4835 13:52 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne On Saturday 7 May this year, I was privileged to meet with over 200 Australians from Oromia. We met in Flemington in my electorate of Melbourne. Many members of this place may not be aware of the Oromian community and have limited knowledge of the plight of the Oromo people. I certainly did not have a detailed awareness prior to my meeting two weeks ago. I have subsequently learnt that the Oromia region stretches across most of Ethiopia. I have also learnt of the difficulties facing the Oromo people, both those in Oromia, where there is evidence systemic killings have occurred over the past decades, and those who have reached Australian shores, where Oromian Australians often find it difficult to access Oromo translator services as they are presumed to speak other languages from the area. Members of the Oromo community in Melbourne spoke to me about their desire for self-identification as Oromian Australians as well as their desire for government services to recognise and support their identity. I invited representatives from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Centrelink, Royal Melbourne Hospital, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the local Moonee Valley council to hear the stories of Oromian Australians and to grow an awareness of this Australian community. Thank you to Aliye, Toltu and Ayesha for increasing my knowledge of their community and the ways we can better support this and other communities of newly arrived Australians. F3 to M2 Link 4836 13:53 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson I would like put on record, in light of recent inaccurate comments in this House and in the Central Coast media, my absolute support for the long-awaited F3 to M2 link, and I record the support of my fellow Central Coast federal Labor colleagues, the members for Dobell and Shortland. Regrettably, after years of New South Wales government inaction, federal funding for $150 million for a feasibility study for the link had to be deferred in this year's budget. In their comments on the F3—which experienced another extensive delay this week further up the road, south of the Hawkesbury—members opposite have neglected to say that this project is in a position where it can only proceed with the support of the New South Wales state Liberal government. That is because it involves upgrading the state, not the national, road network. We are in limbo because the new O'Farrell government is yet to determine its infrastructure priorities for Sydney, which the Premier says will be based on the advice from his yet-to-be-established Infrastructure New South Wales body. I bring to the attention of the House comments made by the New South Wales Roads Minister for Roads and Ports, Duncan Gay, earlier this month. He told state parliament: … the New South Wales Liberals and The Nationals made it clear before the election that we will commence construction on one of the key missing links in the Sydney orbital road … Infrastructure New South Wales will determine whether the first missing link for construction will be the F3-M2 link, the M5 East duplication, the M4 East extension or the F6. So which one will it be? As the federal government has explained to anyone who cares to listen, we have directed Infrastructure Australia to get on with the job. $150 million in planning money was committed and will be just deferred depending on the O'Farrell government. Let us not play the blame game; it is time to get on with the job— (Time expired) Faust, Mr Sam 4836 13:55 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert On a day when all Queenslanders are justifiably proud of our State of Origin footballers, you could be forgiven for not noticing the fact that they were wearing black arm bands last night. It was only last week that I spoke in this chamber asking everyone in Townsville to support a fundraising luncheon for ex-Cowboy second rower Sam Faust. It was to be held today to assist with travel costs to get him overseas for a radical treatment to his very aggressive form of leukaemia. Sadly, Sam lost his fight against this disease this week. It was somewhat profound that today as we celebrated the launch of Australia's Biggest Morning Tea we also mourned the latest casualty of cancer. The lunch will still go ahead in a couple of weeks but it will be to support his beautiful wife and widow, Kya, and their three beautiful girls, Kaiulani, Meika, and Lola. It is appropriate that we speak at this time of immortality. As a parent, you look at your children and you can see parts of you, your partner, four grandparents and extended family members. Sam Faust has achieved immortality. His girls will see to that. Vale Sam Faust. You will be missed, but you will never be forgotten. Climate Change 4837 13:56 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid Today I take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House of Representatives the growing youth movement for climate change action and the grassroots support for action on climate change in my electorate of Reid. Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting three young inspirational constituents—Katherine Tu, Mathew Nicholl and Leah Emmanuel—as part of a 'meet your member' campaign, initiated by the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. I am very impressed by the motivation and passion of these three young Australians. During our discussions, Katherine, Mathew and Leah impressed me with their unshakable conviction that climate change is real and must be addressed now. I was also heartened to learn of the groundswell of support by younger Australians for our government to take urgent and decisive action to combat climate change. After all, it is their generation that will be faced with the terrible consequences of inaction if we fail to act now. I would also like to add just how impressed I am with these students and their maturity and understanding of how vital it is for our government to address the issues of climate change. I thank Katherine, Mathew and Leah for taking the time to raise this critical issue with me not only on their own behalf but also on behalf of their generation as, after all, it is their generation who are the future of our country and we owe it to them to act on climate change now. Johnson, Mr Peter and Mrs Rosie 4837 13:58 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt Rosie and Peter Johnson and their three children are your typical Aussie battling family. What sets them apart is that they have been dealt a massive blow with the downturn of our local economy and also with Cyclone Yasi hitting the Far North. Peter and Rosie own a roadhouse and convenience store in Bloomfield called the Bloomfield River Inn. The Bloomfield River causeway, their only southern access to their community, was washed away in Yasi. It has been closed for the last three months, stopping all passing traffic and causing massive losses to their business. Rosie and Peter had no insurance and, to top it off, the government has decided that businesses in the Bloomfield area are not eligible for disaster relief payments under the NDRRA. Instead of whingeing and throwing their hands in the air, they have rolled up their sleeves to get on with their job and to try to survive. Once a week for the past three months Rosie has travelled 80-odd kilometres in a beat-up old four-wheel-drive to Cooktown and then back down to Cairns to bring fresh fruit, vegetables, milk and other grocery items to restock her store and feed her family. When I spoke to them recently they told me that the causeway had just been reinstated except that the road was very rough and available for four-wheel-drive vehicles only. But Rosie said that there is a positive side. She said, 'With the rough stones in the causeway maybe now we can get some work for our little tyre-changing business.' I call on the government to reconsider their decision in relation to the Yasi relief and ask them to extend the relief support to businesses in Cairns, Cape York and, of course, into the Bloomfield area to support Rosie and Peter Johnson and their family. (Time expired) National Palliative Care Week 4838 13:59 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra This morning I attended the National Palliative Care Week breakfast launch. The theme for this year's launch is 'Let's chat about dying', which is a pretty confronting subject but essential to ensuring the expectations of our loved ones— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The time for members' statements has expired. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 4838 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE National Sorry Day 4838 14:00 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Today is Sorry Day and as you would see it is being marked by many members in the House wearing the emblem of Sorry Day. That means it is the anniversary of the tabling in this parliament of the 1997 Bringing them home report, which was co-authored by Mick Dodson and by the late Sir Ronald Wilson. That was a landmark report. Many members of this House would remember it well, would remember its contents well and would remember the day that the parliament received it well. It was a report that acknowledged the forced separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. When it was received by this parliament it was spoken to by members in the House. I clearly remember that day and the Leader of the Opposition Kim Beazley shedding some tears because of the content of that report and how powerful are how moving it was. As part of the journey of healing that the nation has engaged in since the delivery of that report, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in this place in 2008 delivered the national apology that recognised the profound grief, suffering and loss past government practices inflicted on stolen generations. That was an important moment—a page of history written for our nation. But the journey of healing still continues. We recognise that members of the stolen generations continue to require our support and they continue on their personal journey of healing. So today we reflect on the grief and on the trauma experienced by members of the stolen generations. On behalf of all Australians we commit ourselves to an ongoing journey of healing. Of course, I believe we also jointly resolve to keep working with members of the stolen generations and the organisations who represent them to make sure that we continue to hear their voices and we continue to support them. Thank you. 14:02 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I rise to support the words of the Prime Minister and to agree that, yes, we should remember all the ways in which Indigenous policy has failed and resolve to do better. And we should recall all the ways in which Australians have not treated their fellow Australians as they should have and resolve to improve. But it has not all been bad. I should acknowledge former Prime Minister Keating for reminding us all, at Redfern in 1992, of that legacy of unutterable shame. I should also acknowledge former Prime Minister Howard for his work to bring about practical improvements in the lives of Aboriginal people, including through the intervention which both sides of this parliament supported. I should also acknowledge former Prime Minister Rudd for having the vision to say sorry on behalf of our nation. That was an historic day and we all pay tribute to him for that act of statesmanship. In the Prime Minister's speech that day he pointed out that words without deeds were empty—they were but sounding brass and clanging gongs. The point is not just to be sorry but to do better. I should observe today that this parliament could improve the economic prospects of the Aboriginal people of Cape York if it passed the private member's bill on Wild Rivers. And you and I, Prime Minister, could better address the social crisis in Alice Springs and elsewhere if we were prepared to meet together with the provisional owners as we have both been invited to do. It is all very well to be sorry for the past problems and the past mistakes that have undoubtedly been made. That means it is all the more urgent that we do not compound current problems by making new mistakes. I grieve for the stolen generations of the past. I also grieve for the ruined generations of the present and for that we should all be truly sorry. Reference to Main Committee 4839 Mr ALBANESE R36 by leave—I move: That further statements by indulgence in relation to National Sorry Day be permitted in the Main Committee. Question agreed to. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 4839 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:05 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I inform the House that the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts will be absent from question time today as he is attending Mr Bill Hunter's memorial service in Melbourne. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport will answer questions in relation to regional Australia, regional development and local government. The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth will answer questions in relation to the arts on behalf of the arts minister. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 4839 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Asylum Seekers 4839 14:06 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I can guarantee that no asylum seeker sent to Nauru will be subject to caning. Can the Prime Minister make the same guarantee about asylum seekers sent to Malaysia? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 When the House comes to order we will proceed. The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, the standing orders are very clear with regard to argument. I know you have interpreted them broadly, but that question was clearly out of order. The SPEAKER HH4 It has been the practice of the House to allow leaders to have some latitude, and I will allow that latitude on this occasion. That is not in any way debating the merit of the point of order. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:08 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Of course, because we have the most negative opposition in this country's history, one of the things they refuse to do is ever to deal with the facts. As the Leader of the Opposition ought to know, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship put out a statement in relation to this matter earlier today which fully answers this question. I myself was asked questions about it by the media today and fully answered this question. I refer him to the statement that I released—the co-statement with the Prime Minister of Malaysia—which answers this question. Of course, the arrangement that we will make with Malaysia will ensure that asylum seekers who are transferred from Australia are treated with dignity and treated with respect and treated in accordance with our understanding of human rights, and of course our understanding of human rights deals with the question the Leader of the Opposition asks. Cancer 4840 14:09 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Why is it important for Australians to get behind the Cancer Council's Biggest Morning Tea campaign and how can every Australian take action to reduce cancer? 14:10 Ms ROXON 83K Gellibrand I thank the member for Makin for his question. He, like many other members of this House on both sides, joined the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and about a million Australians who take part in the Cancer Council's Australia's Biggest Morning Tea. It helps the Cancer Council to raise funds for research to prevent and control cancer. At this event the Leader of the Opposition urged Australians to do all that they could to tackle cancer. In fact, I can quote the Leader of the Opposition. He said, 'We should do all that we can to fight cancer.' So I have just a teensy-weensy suggestion for the Leader of the Opposition about what he could do himself. He could, for example, support our comprehensive plans to tackle tobacco, from the social marketing campaigns, the excise increase, our plain-packaging measures— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! It will assist the House if people sit here quietly. There is only one person with the call. It is the Minister for Health and Ageing. Mr Ruddock interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Berowra is warned! Ms ROXON 83K Members of this House might be interested to know that, since there was an increase in the excise on tobacco last April, we have seen a very dramatic initial effect. In fact, from that excise change, there has been an initial drop in tobacco clearances of 8.8 per cent compared to the previous four years. Of course, all of this funding is being invested in health and hospitals. But this seems to be one of the figures that those opposite are not asking about which appears in the budget. And, very oddly, yesterday afternoon the Leader of the Opposition actually criticised this excise for tobacco. So this means a person who this morning urged all Australians to do all they could to tackle cancer now—although he is in a unique position to do something about it—opposes the tobacco excise, opposes plain packaging and even opposes bans on smoking in cars with kids. Does anyone get the feeling that the Leader of the Opposition was not being straight this morning when he made those comments? But I have another quote. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The minister will resume her place. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance with respect to this matter. In order to be fully, directly relevant I would have thought that the minister would have announced in this answer when they will actually introduce a bill. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! There is no point of order. The minister will directly relate the material that she is using to the question. Ms ROXON 83K The reason this is important today is that we are supporting the Cancer Council's efforts to raise funds to tackle cancer. Mr Abbott himself came to the event and urged all Australians, rightly, to give generously to this cause—although he did, I think, come with an empty wallet, which he wanted to make a joke about himself. However, when the Leader of the Opposition is urging other Australians to do all they can to tackle tobacco— Mr Simpkins interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Cowan! Mr Simpkins HWE Introduce the bill next week! The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Cowan is warned! Ms ROXON 83K We have to ask the question about why he and the Liberal Party do not support plain packaging. I went back and found a comment from Mr Abbott that may help explain this. This is the man who says: 'My parents both smoked heavily when I was a kid. Now, has it done me any harm?' That may be a very good question. The SPEAKER HH4 The minister will bring her answer to a close. Ms ROXON 83K We urge all Australians to support the Cancer Council's Biggest Morning Tea, and, to the Leader of the Opposition, we ask him to start living up to his own promises. Asylum Seekers 4841 14:14 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her answer in the House earlier this week, when she refused to rule out Malaysia's right of veto over the 800 asylum seekers to be transferred from Australia. Can the Prime Minister now confirm that Malaysia will decide who goes to their country from Australia and the circumstances in which they go, and that any asylum seeker rejected by Malaysia will stay in Australia? 14:15 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor It is no surprise to me, and I suspect no surprise to people on this side of the House, that we are back to the old faithful of asylum seekers today. With so many divisions on that side of the parliament to cover up, they have obviously decided to go back to the thing that they think they can profit from. It is remarkable—they are not prepared to actually engage in the kind of debate that the minister for health has outlined to the House, because that goes to a division; not prepared to engage in debate about climate change, because of their division about it; not prepared to engage in a debate about the economy, because they do not know anything about it. Ms Julie Bishop 83P Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked whether asylum seekers rejected by Malaysia would stay in Australia. I ask that the Prime Minister answer that question. The SPEAKER HH4 The Prime Minister will directly relate her response to the question. Ms GILLARD 83L On the question, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows from the statements I have made, including the statement I made with the Prime Minister of Malaysia, we will enter with Malaysia into an innovative agreement to transfer asylum seekers so that we send a very, very strong signal to people-smugglers that they no longer have in their hands the product they wish to sell, which is the prospect that they can get asylum seekers to Australia and have their claims processed here. The arrangement with Malaysia is about that. People who are serious about dealing with the scourge of people-smuggling would understand that, and this continuing attempt by the opposition to distort the facts and raise the apprehension of Australians that somehow another country is going to determine our immigration policy is truly pathetic indeed. Tobacco Products 4841 14:18 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What is the government's approach to tackling smoking and the activities of tobacco companies? On what advice has the government based its actions, and how have these actions been received? 14:18 Ms ROXON 83K Gellibrand I thank the member for La Trobe for her question—I know that she has a motion before the House about tobacco company donations, and that debate will be very eagerly anticipated by those on this side of the House. We are leading the world in the measures that we are taking against smoking, including of course the first introduction anywhere in the world of plain packaging for tobacco. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The minister will resume her seat. We will continue when we get some silence—and I have plenty of time, I can tell you! Mr Robb interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Goldstein is warned! Ms ROXON 83K It is true that our policies have been influenced by people outside our party. For example, we have been influenced by researchers, by public health advocates and by the AMA. We have taken advice from the Preventative Health Taskforce and we have been strongly influenced by the Cancer Council and the Heart Foundation. None of these organisations give us money. Yet in this place, in a couple of months when we are all asked to vote on plain packaging, there will be other influences at play. The coalition denies it is being influenced by big tobacco, but I have discovered something that seems to throw this into question. It is a policy that comes from big tobacco themselves—British American Tobacco, in fact. I think some of those opposite might particularly like to hear this because, despite their protestations, British American Tobacco makes the statement on its own website that their worldwide policy when it comes to donations is: Such payments can only be made for the purpose of influencing the debate on issues affecting the company … The Liberal and National parties deny that these contributions have any influence, but the donors say that is the only reason they can actually make a donation. Those opposite might be interested to know something else that is on this website. According to British American Tobacco's own figures, they made political donations in only three countries around the world in 2010. In Canada they made a donation of £1,000 and in the Solomon Islands they made a donation of £2,000. In Australia, they made a donation—to just two parties in this place—of £111,000. So 97 per cent of British American Tobacco's money is spent here on two parties—the Liberal Party and the National Party. And they are asking us to believe that this has no influence on their decision on whether they are going to support plain packaging or not! We have not taken our lead from big tobacco; it is about time the Leader of the Opposition showed that he was not able to be bought by big tobacco and stood up for those who are fighting cancer. It is time to kick the habit, Mr Abbott. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, on a point of order: these personal imputations of the Minister for Health and Ageing should be withdrawn. Mr Briggs IYU Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the register— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Mayo will resume his place. The point of order that his good colleague the member for Sturt has raised with me— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 I thought he was a close colleague from the state! I am not sure, but I will deal with that first and just indicate to the member for Mayo that I have indicated that I will not allow a member to rise and seek leave to table a document if it is not his question. That may pre-empt what he is trying to do, and I hope he takes that on board. Given the level of noise and that I was trying to get the member for Gippsland under control at the time, I did not hear what was said. I do note that there was a reaction. I am not sure whether that was commensurate with whatever was said, but to assist the conduct of the chamber I ask that the minister withdraw. I want the chamber to settle down or I will give a general warning. The minister has the call. She should be heard in silence. Ms ROXON 83K I withdraw, Mr Speaker. The fact is that British American tobacco gives 97 per cent of its donations to those in the parties opposite—the Liberal Party and the National Party. It is time to kick the habit, Mr Abbott. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr Chester interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! I am not sure whether the member for Gippsland and the member for Wakefield are drinking from the same glass, but something is in the water. Both of them might get a chance to go and have a cup of tea together. Asylum Seekers 4843 14:25 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I refer the minister to his complementary protection legislation, passed by the parliament yesterday, that now enables asylum seekers to make claims under the United Nations Convention against Torture. Given that Malaysia is not a signatory to the convention, can the minister confirm that the 800 asylum seekers to be sent to Malaysia may be eligible to have their transfer prevented and to remain in Australia while a claim under the convention regarding their potential treatment in Malaysia is assessed under the new laws? 14:25 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I cannot confirm that, because it is completely untrue, as the member for Cook well knows. He has completely misrepresented the complementary protection legislation once again, as he has previously, and completely misrepresented the arrangements with Malaysia. I am happy to go through this methodically for the benefit of the member for Cook. The Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of Malaysia have released a statement that outlines the agreement reached by them. That statement says that Prime Ministers Najib and Gillard have agreed that core elements of this bilateral arrangement will include that 'transferees will be treated with dignity and respect and in accordance with human rights standards'. That is what the agreement between the two prime ministers says very clearly. It has been confirmed by the Malaysian High Commissioner to Australia since then that these transferees will be treated humanely under the terms of that agreement. The member for Cook chooses to misrepresent the situation in relation to Malaysia. The member for Cook comes in here and cries his crocodile tears about the situation for asylum seekers in Malaysia, at the same time as criticising us for taking too many asylum seekers—for taking 4,000 asylum seekers—out of Malaysia. The hypocrisy of the member for Cook is exceeded only by this point: as the House would recall, last November the member for Cook proposed an arrangement similar to that proposed by the government in relation to a transfer agreement, except that instead of Malaysia he proposed Iran. I wonder how he would have gone negotiating with President Ahmadinejad the protections that this government has negotiated. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! Before calling the member for New England, I am reliably informed that yesterday was the 20th anniversary of the election of the member for New England to one of those smaller parliaments in Australia, the New South Wales parliament. He has had 20 years of service in both the state and the federal parliament, and I think that that length of service should be acknowledged. Honourable members: Hear, hear! The SPEAKER HH4 That is not the reason he is getting the call! He is the only one standing. Younger People in Residential Aged Care Program 4844 14:28 Mr WINDSOR 009LP New England Thank you, Mr Speaker. You may recognise what I have here in my hand. The SPEAKER HH4 I am glad you found it. The member for New England will come to his question. Mr WINDSOR 009LP The theft that occurred has been rectified! My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I understand that the Younger People in Residential Aged Care Program of the Council of Australian Governments will end in a few weeks—on 30 June—after five years. Whilst the initiative has helped over 800 young people in this group to have a better quality of life, there are still 6,500 young Australians who remain inappropriately placed in nursing homes. I ask that the minister inform the House whether recommendations of the 2009 mid-term review have been accepted and implemented and whether the government's plans are for continuing the important work into the future, particularly recommendation 3 of the review which refers to regional and remote areas. 14:29 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I thank the member for New England for his question and I think we all join together in congratulating him on his 20 years of service. This is a very important question and, like the member for New England, I think I can say that all members of this House agree that it is critical that we work together to provide alternative accommodation to young people who have been inappropriately housed in nursing homes in the past. As the member for New England has just outlined, too many people continue to be in nursing homes even when they are quite young. I can reassure the member for New England that the government is continuing to provide funding to the Young People in Residential Care Program. In fact, this year we are delivering around $38 million to the states and territories to assist them to move people into more appropriate accommodation so that young people can live with dignity in places that are more suited to their needs. I also want to reassure the member for New England and all members of this House that that funding is ongoing. I know there have been some concerns about that, but I can reassure him that that funding is in our budget out into the future. It is funded as part of the $6.2 billion National Disability Agreement. One of the important changes that this government has made is to improve the indexation of the funding that goes into that agreement. The indexation now is around six per cent, so we can certainly see that money growing as the years go on. It is very important that I let you know that, just last December at a meeting of Commonwealth, state and territory disability ministers, we reaffirmed our continuing commitment to address the needs of young people in nursing homes. In addition to that, the government announced in the election campaign that we would invest an extra $60 million to build up to 150 innovative community based accommodation places for people with disability. I anticipate that most of those places will go to young people. So we certainly recognise, with the member for New England—and I think I can confidently say that this is a view held by many in this House—that we do need to continue to help those young people who are inappropriately in nursing homes to find better and more appropriate accommodation where they can live with dignity. Climate Change, Tobacco Products 4845 14:33 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell My question is to Prime Minister. Why is it vital to be guided by the facts and evidence when it comes to tackling climate change and reducing smoking rates? How is the government undertaking an evidence based approach to these challenges? 14:33 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Calwell for her question on the very important topic of using facts and evidence to design policies. The Australian people can be reassured that this government is acting on the basis of the facts and the evidence rather than peddling fear as we see this negative opposition do. On climate change, the scientific evidence is in and it is beyond doubt. The science tells us that human emissions of greenhouse gases, with carbon dioxide being the most important, have been the primary trigger of climate change since at least the 1950s. The science tells us that current carbon emissions are 37 per cent larger than they were in the 1990s. The science is telling us to act and we are determined to act. When we turn to the question of cigarette smoking, the science is also unbelievably clear. Smoking kills over 15,000 Australians per year. It is the leading cause of cancer and we do know from scientific studies that plain paper packaging will make a difference. We have accepted the evidence. But on the other side we see a complete denial of the evidence. They would rather peddle fear than deal with the facts and deal with the evidence. We know that Senator Nick Minchin has been out leading the sceptics within the opposition denying the science of climate change and we know that the opposition is refusing to accept the scientific studies which show the way in which plain packaging will make a difference. I would say to those opposite, and particularly to the Leader of the Opposition, that they should not continue to oppose effective action on climate change and they should not oppose further action to reduce smoking rates in our society. The confusion on the opposition side knows no bounds. We actually increased the excise on smoking because the science told us that it would reduce smoking rates. That was clear. And at one point, the shadow minister for health agreed with us. Indeed, he was agreeing with us as recently as 24 May—that is, this week he was agreeing with us. He was saying that he proposed, along with the Leader of the Opposition, an increase of $2 billion in excise because pricing works. But then the Leader of the Opposition actually unravelled that support for an excise increase when he spoke— Mr Pyne 9V5 On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it is possible the member for Calwell might have asked the wrong question, but that is not an excuse for the Prime Minister to try to cover two questions in the one answer. What she is now saying has absolutely nothing to do with the question she was asked. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The opposition may believe there is an element of parallel universe going on here, but I simply say to them that, if they had actually listened, they would have heard that both climate change and smoking were mentioned in the question by the member for Calwell. The Prime Minister is being directly relevant to the question. Ms GILLARD 83L I thank the opposition for so visibly demonstrating my point in the last few minutes: they do not listen. They did not listen to the question, they do not listen to the scientists, they do not absorb any facts—they just do not care. The little shambles we just saw over there, where they were joking about whether smoking causes climate change, should cause Australians to recoil in horror, because what it means is that the opposition could not care less about either. They do not care about climate change; they are sceptics. They do not care about smoking; they are too big on the drip from big tobacco to take anything about smoking seriously. Maybe the smoke that they care about is the smoke that shows there is a fire of division over there in the opposition. We have the division on display at the end of this week: the Leader of the Opposition versus the shadow Treasurer; the Leader of the Opposition versus the member for Wentworth; the Leader of the Opposition versus the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; and the famous five who have been singled out for criticism by the Chief Opposition Whip. They are a divided opposition who are incapable of taking in facts and evidence and incapable of designing a policy for the nation's future. (Time expired) Mining 4846 (North Sydney) (14:39): Mr HOCKEY DK6 My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer direct the Grants Commission not to reduce Western Australia's share of the GST and not to penalise Western Australia as a result of its removing the concessions on iron ore fines? 14:39 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the shadow Treasurer for the question. No, I will not direct the Grants Commission to do that, and for the shadow Treasurer to try, as he has done in this House in the past few days, to draw some comparison between a previous direction and the current situation represents a complete misunderstanding by those on that side of the House of what is going on in terms of the taxation of fines in Western Australia. There are fines which are covered by state agreements, and the direction I gave to the Grants Commission related to fines covered by state agreements; it did not relate to other fines. Now that the Western Australian government itself has decided to treat all fines equally—that is, the fines covered by state agreements and the other fines—so should the Grants Commission. That is the factual situation that those opposite have not understood at any stage through this debate. They have been on a frolic about it, but the situation is now clear to everybody: the Western Australian government on eight occasions leading up to its budget a couple of weeks ago said to the public that it would not be increasing the royalty on fines. Eight times it said that prior to the budget, when it increased the royalty for fines. It even made a submission to the Grants Commission at the end of last year saying that it would not do it and that, if that action were taken, it would lead to a sovereign risk. That is why those on the outside of the House are so embarrassed at the moment. This time last year they were running around Australia claiming that we were going to tax the mining companies too much and that they were being taxed too much already, but now we have the Western Australian Premier going out and doing precisely what they have opposed: taxing the mining companies by increasing royalties, and that has been denied by the Western Australian Premier on eight occasions. Those opposite simply do not understand what they are talking about in this area, and they are acutely embarrassed by the behaviour of the Western Australian government and by their own behaviour in this House. Of course, on this question they are divided. We can see that every day. They are even too divided to turn up to their own divisions. Climate Change 4847 14:42 Mr MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the government's carbon farming initiatives? How have these reforms been received and what is the government's response? 14:43 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton I thank the member for McEwen for his question. The government is endeavouring to implement its election commitment to give farmers and landholders access to carbon markets. Under the carbon farming initiative, which is currently before the House, farmers and landholders and foresters have the opportunity to develop projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars to store and reduce carbon in our landscape. This is very important legislation that has been welcomed in particular by the National Farmers Federation for the reasons that I have outlined. It is very surprising therefore that the coalition yesterday signalled that it wants to delay the bill. This is despite the fact that the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Flinders, has been understandably enthusiastic about the carbon farming initiative and has been trying to reassure stakeholders that he would deliver the support of the coalition for this initiative. However, it is now clear that that reassurance cannot be delivered on and that there is division on that side of politics about this important issue. Mr Hunt interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Flinders is warned. Mr COMBET YW6 They simply cannot get their act together over something that would provide a revenue stream for farmers and assist in tackling climate change. Notwithstanding the support of the NFF and the potential benefits to farmers, the Leader of the Nationals told the House yesterday that the Carbon Farming Initiative was 'just another tree planting scheme.' He then widely briefed the media that the Nationals did not support the Carbon Farming Initiative. If the Nationals leader had bothered to have a look he would have found out that the Carbon Farming Initiative will not lead to trees usurping prime agricultural land, because the government has built significant safeguards into the legislation to prevent that from occurring. Those safeguards have been the subject of extensive consultation with the stakeholders. Mr Abbott interjecting— Mr COMBET YW6 I hear the Leader of the Opposition raising the issue of the details. The government has already begun to release the methodologies to provide guidance to project development and has provided the details of eligible and ineligible project activities relevant to land use. Instead of delaying a positive initiative for farmers, the coalition would be better off having a look at the effect of their own subsidies-for-polluters policy because that is where a deep problem lies. The Leader of the Opposition has been running around with his scare campaign saying that we can deal with climate change by planting trees everywhere. I am surprised that the Nationals leader has not picked this up. To meet their current emissions reduction target under their own subsidies-for-polluters policy, the coalition would need to plant trees on an area larger than the entire crop land of this country. I suggest that if the Nationals are concerned about the use of prime agricultural land they should have a little look at the subsidies-for-polluters policy. They are a joke on these areas of policy. They are divided on all the big issues. They are run by climate science deniers. They cannot get their act together even on an issue that would be of significant benefit to the farmers of this country. Get your act together. The SPEAKER HH4 I remind the minister to refer his remarks through the chair. I will try to get my act together. Coal Industry 4848 14:47 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer agree with the Minister for Resources and Energy that stopping Australian coal exports will lead to other countries using lower quality, dirtier coal that does more damage to the environment? 14:48 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I can certainly tell the shadow Treasurer that all of us on this side of the House are in favour of exporting coal. It seems like a common-sense thing to do. One of the reasons we need to put a price on carbon is to ensure that all of our industries, including our coal industry, can get access to international markets and also be competitive in international markets. That is the objective of everybody on the side of the House, but those opposite want to stick their heads in the sand because they are not capable of facing up to the really big decisions that we must make as a nation to ensure we remain competitive. The coal industry is one of our most important industries. We on this side of the House are strong supporters of the coal industry. We understand that the coal industry, like so many of our other industries, must be competitive. That is why we need a price on carbon. As the rest of the world prices carbon and we do not, our industries and exports could face trade barriers. Of course, the one that would be most under threat from that would be the coal industry. I am optimistic about the future of our coal industry because we have some of the cleanest coal in the world. As the world moves to renewable energy it will still require traditional energy and our coal will be highly valued in that environment. In an environment where carbon is priced and where investment is driven to renewable energy there will still be a role for coal and a very big role for the Australian coal industry. 14:49 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Given that the Treasurer is such an enthusiastic supporter of coal exports, why is the Labor government imposing a carbon tax that will shut 16 Australian coal mines and cost 10,000 Australians their jobs but deliver no net benefit for the environment? 14:50 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I really do thank the shadow Treasurer for that question because it just demonstrates how he has changed his spots when it comes to climate change. There was a time in this House when he said he was an avid supporter of climate change and that we needed a price on carbon, and he strongly supported the member for Wentworth in that endeavour. But I remember the day when he really lost the plot. It was when the leadership struggle was on in that party and he sent a message out on Twitter saying, 'Tell me what I believe in.' Mr Hockey interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The member for North Sydney will withdraw. Mr Hockey DK6 I withdraw. I also rise on a point of order about relevance. I ask you to bring him back to answer the question. The SPEAKER HH4 The member for North Sydney has raised with me the point of order on direct relevance. The Treasurer should respond directly to the question. Mr SWAN 2V5 The sad truth is that the shadow Treasurer stands for nothing and believes in very little. Someone who could change their stance so radically— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The Treasurer will come to the question. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, you made a ruling to the Treasurer to ask him to be relevant to the question and then he instantly ignored your ruling in the next breath. I ask you what action you are going to take. The SPEAKER HH4 As the member for Sturt rose to the dispatch box, he may or may not have heard that I asked the Treasurer to come back to the question. He will respond to the question directly. Mr SWAN 2V5 I was asked about the impact of a carbon price on our coal industry, which is so important to the generation of jobs and wealth for our country. The underlying factor is this: the industry understands there needs to be a price on carbon and that is why they are continuing to invest. And for the shadow Treasurer to ask me this question today, when the capital investment, the CAPEX figures, have come out and they are truly strong and very encouraging for the future of our economy, and when we have just today got the report from ABARE talking about how the pipeline of investment in coal and iron ore is growing—it just demonstrates that he has not got a clue what is going on in our economy. The fact is that the industry understands that carbon is going to be priced and they are continuing to invest. We have an unprecedented investment boom in our nation. But of course that is not understood by anybody on the other side of the House, because all they want to do is score cheap political points and run incredibly stupid scare campaigns. Economy 4849 14:54 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson My question is to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on recent economic data and what this says about our economy and the importance of continuing to invest in jobs? 14:54 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for Robertson for that very important question. There is some data out today that says a lot about the future of our economy, the future of growth here and our prospects well into the future. The fact is we do have an unprecedented investment pipeline in Australia. Today's capital expenditure numbers show that businesses are confidently investing in growing their businesses. In resources alone investment has gone from $35 billion in 2009-10 to more than $50 billion in 2010-11. This is expected to increase even further in 2011-12 to a record $83 billion, eight times greater than it was before the mining boom mark 1. Total investment in 2010-11 is estimated to be $124 billion, with a record $139.5 billion expected in 2011-12. This is a very strong investment pipeline. It was also backed up today by ABARE's figures, which are talking about an investment pipeline in resources of $430 billion. It is a very strong investment pipeline, but we are all aware, certainly on this side of the House, that there was a very dramatic impact on our economy from the floods back in January and also from Cyclone Yasi. This was ignored by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply. It is probably the most significant event in the Australian economy in the past year and it did not even get a mention in the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply, much to the embarrassment of all the Queensland members over there, because the impact of Cyclone Yasi and the floods has been to rip $9 billion out of our economy in the short term. That will mean a dramatic impact on growth in the March quarter, and we will see that next week in the national accounts. But these CAPEX numbers today are a reminder to all of us of the great opportunity that lies ahead for Australia: a strong growth outlook, low unemployment and strong job creation—260,000 jobs in the past year alone, with about 80 per cent of them being full time. During the time this government has been in power 700,000 jobs have been created and we are looking at another 500,000 jobs in the next two and a bit years. Everybody on this side of the House understands the importance of a job to the welfare of families and to the security of businesses. We understand it, but it is not understood by those on the other side of the House. That is why we are so intent on bringing the budget back to surplus in 2012-13. That is why making savings in the budget is so important. We have this strong investment pipeline and we cannot compound the inflationary pressures that will flow from it. That is why the government savings must pass: to keep jobs secure and to make sure that we are maximising the opportunities for the future. That is why we must have a disciplined fiscal policy and not something we see from those opposite—there is no policy at all. And that is why we must put a price on carbon. It will give certainty for investors. But those on the other side of the House are not capable at all of facing up to the big decisions, particularly this Leader of the Opposition. He wants to run a negative campaign day after day. For our part we will get on with supporting our economy, putting the right policies in place, supporting jobs and families. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: Erbitux 4850 14:58 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to comments in his budget speech that the government will 'make new medicines and immunisations more affordable'. Is the Treasurer aware of any deaths as a result of the government failing to fund Erbitux on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? 14:58 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley The government takes the issue of listing medicines and the funding and paying for that element of health care extremely seriously. Frankly, I think that question was just despicable. Defence Procurement 4850 14:59 Mr MELHAM 4T4 Banks My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on the progress of the construction of three new air warfare destroyers? 14:59 Mr STEPHEN SMITH 5V5 Perth I thank the member for his question. As the House might recall, in 2007 the then Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, now our ambassador in NATO, announced the acquisition of three air warfare destroyers for the Royal Australian Navy. This government, in the Defence white paper 2009, confirmed that we would proceed with the acquisition of these three new ships, and they ships are currently due for delivery in December 2014. When complete, the air warfare destroyer will be one of the more capable types of warship of its size in the world. They provide advance air defence against missiles and aircraft for self-protection, as well as for other ships and for land forces in coastal areas. The total cost of the project is about $8 billion, with a significant benefit for local Australian industry. Overall, the estimate is that around 50 per cent of the total value of the project will be spent in Australia. The ships are being constructed in 90 separate blocks, which are being fabricated in three separate Australian shipyards: in Adelaide at the ASC shipyard, in Melbourne at the BAE Systems shipyard and in Newcastle at the Forgacs shipyard. They will ultimately be assembled in Adelaide. Today, the Minister for Defence Materiel and I announced a reallocation of work for that project. This is necessary because, in addition to the air warfare destroyer work, the Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard is also building blocks for the superstructure for the two new landing helicopter dock ships due for delivery in 2014-15. The Melbourne shipyard is stretched, working on two major projects at the same time. The government, the Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance and BAE Systems takes the schedule for these two very important projects most seriously. In February of this year, BAE Systems advised the AWD Alliance of potential schedule delays. As a consequence of that, I met with BAE Systems United Kingdom in London in March of this year. The Minister for Defence Materiel speaks regularly to the CEO of BAE Systems Australia, Jim McDowell, and on this particular matter has met and spoken with him on a number of occasions in recent months. Over the last few months the AWD Alliance and BAE Systems have been working very closely to prepare options to improve the production outcomes, and earlier this month BAE Systems presented the alliance with a plan to adjust this workload on the air warfare destroyer project. The advice of the alliance was that if no action were taken to relieve the pressure on the Melbourne shipyard the first ship would be two years late. As a consequence of these discussions and that possible outcome, the Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance, with the support of BAE Systems and with the support of the Minister for Defence Materiel and I, propose to take the following action. Firstly, up to 13 steel blocks will be reallocated among the three Australian shipyards in Adelaide, Melbourne and Newcastle and up to five blocks will be reallocated to Navantia in Ferrol, Spain. This action will reduce the schedule risk for both this project and the LHD, landing helicopter dock, ships project. The Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance has advised that this action will reduce the estimated delay of the completion of the first ship by up to 12 months and all three AWDs by the same period. It will also reduce the pressure on BAE Systems to complete its work on the LHD ships. Importantly, I am advised that there will be little, if any, adverse impact on the current Melbourne BAE Systems shipyard workforce, which is around 300, as a result of this decision. That workforce will continue to have the opportunity to work on the AWDs as well as the landing helicopter docks, and that is a good thing for Melbourne as it is a good thing for Adelaide and Newcastle. Infrastructure: Pacific Highway 4852 15:03 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to evidence in Senate estimates yesterday that the duplication of the Pacific Highway will cost an additional $7 billion above everything that is provided in the forward estimates. How will the Treasurer meet the Prime Minister's promise to complete this project by 2016 and still return the budget to surplus by 2012-13? 15:04 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley Through a prudent fiscal policy and strict fiscal discipline, and working with state governments who will have to bear their share of the burden. We will do that in both those ways. I will tell you what: we have shown a lot more interest in the Pacific Highway than those opposite. I happen to know our commitments are much larger than theirs, and we have put them all in our budget and they are all funded. We have a commitment and a priority for the Pacific Highway that those opposite never had. The other thing that they will not do is tell anybody how they are going to fund any of their commitments. How would they fund the Pacific Highway? Mr Pyne 9V5 I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the member for Mackellar pointed out yesterday, there is provision in the standing orders for a minister, if he does not know the answer to a question, to simply say so and return to the House later and answer the question. He is clearly not answering the question and I would ask you to draw him back to the question or sit him down. The SPEAKER HH4 There is no point of order. The Treasurer will respond to the question. Mr SWAN 2V5 As someone who has travelled the Pacific Highway a lot in my life, one of the things that I am proudest of in this budget is the commitment of $1 billion to the Pacific Highway. I am really proud of that. I am proud of the performance of our roads minister here, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, who has made a very big commitment to the Pacific Highway and, of course, the Independent members, who have a real interest in this highway. I know how dangerous this highway is because I am a Queenslander and I have driven it all my life. We have a commitment there that has not been there from those opposite. Our total commitment is $4.1 billion, compared to the Howard government's $1.3 billion. That is the answer to your question. The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Boothby. Dr Southcott TK6 Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Treasurer. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! Sorry, no. The member for Boothby will resume his seat. I made a mistake—and I admit mistakes. Not many people here do. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The difference was that the Chief Government Whip was on his feet. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 He was not. I do not really appreciate the very smart way that I have these arguments with senior members of the frontbench in this manner. If the member for North Sydney has a problem when I correct the mistake that I made, he can raise a point of order. It was not a mistake. The incident that he remembers from earlier in the week was about the rotation of the call. I gave the call on the rotation. The fact that maybe the Leader of the Opposition was a little slow is not something that I highlighted at the time. But I will not, when I can recover from a mistake and I have admitted a mistake, have it challenged in the way that the member for North Sydney did. Business of the House 4853 15:08 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I have a very relevant question to the Leader of the House. I ask him: how are members of the House approaching negotiations on the conduct of the proceedings of the House? 15:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Hunter, the Chief Government Whip, for his question. Indeed, as of today, at 1.30, we have passed 112 pieces of legislation through this House—112 supported, zero opposed by this House of Representatives. And we have done that in just eight months. How does that compare with our predecessors? Those opposite would like to say that this parliament cannot function properly because it requires proper negotiation. The fact is that in the first 12 months of the Howard government 108 bills were passed by the House of Representatives, so we have been more efficient and more productive on this side of the House in terms of getting legislation through. Big changes have gone through the House, on the economy, on child care, on family services. This parliament is working efficiently and effectively. Through cooperation and discipline, this government is implementing its agenda to secure the future prosperity of this country. Of course, we know that discipline is pretty important. I was sent an email earlier on today and it said this: Last night we lost a division because the following five Coalition Members failed to support their colleagues: Malcolm Turnbull (5 missed divisions)—margin 14.86% He has always had a problem with emails! Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, on a point of order. I assume, in order to be directly relevant, the Leader of the House will refer to the fact that they failed to get a quorum yesterday for the government. The SPEAKER HH4 The Manager of Opposition Business knows that that is outside the standing orders. It is not a point of order; it is a point. Mr ALBANESE R36 It then goes on to list Ian Macfarlane, Alby Schultz and the number of divisions that they have missed, then John Forrest—even Luke Hartsuyker, the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business. And it goes on to say this: This behaviour is totally unacceptable and shows great disrespect to their colleagues and the Coalition as a whole. As a result of the absence of these Members, the following Members missed an opportunity to raise issues important to their electorates … And it goes through the members Tudge, Kelly, Simpkins, Southcott and Frydenberg and their respective margins. It then goes on—and it gets better. It says: It is an interesting point to note that all the Members who missed the division occupy safe seats, while, of the Members prevented from speaking in the adjournment debate three are first term Members and all occupy marginal or key seats. It then goes on to say: Members are elected to Parliament to represent their constituents. That includes being present when the Parliament divides on a question. As we know, they are so divided opposite they cannot even make it to divisions. For the benefit of honourable members, I table the signed letter from Hon. Warren Entsch, Chief Opposition Whip, Patrick Secker, Nola Marino, Mark Coulton and Paul Neville. They are all having a go there, and I know that this was of great interest particularly to the member for Wentworth, who saw it as part of the attack by the Leader of the Opposition. This is a Leader of the Opposition who has done for political discourse what the vuvuzela did for World Cup soccer—lots of noise, interesting at the beginning but annoying when that is the only noise it can make. The only noise it can make is one of opposition. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, in the spirit of the Leader of the House tabling the letter, I seek leave to table yesterday's Hansard section dealing with when the House closed down because the government could not maintain discipline in the chamber. Leave not granted. Carbon Pricing 4854 15:14 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby My question is to the Treasurer, and I refer the Treasurer to the announcement that SA power provider ETSA Utilities will raise household power bills in South Australia by 10 per cent this year and over the next two years utility bills will rise by $623 for the forgotten families of South Australia. Mr Champion interjecting — The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The member for Boothby will resume his seat. The member for Wakefield will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). The member for Wakefield then left the chamber. Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Over the next two years, utility bills will rise by $623 for the forgotten families of South Australia. Given that the Prime Minister said before the election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' why is the government making life even harder for families, already struggling with cost-of-living pressures, by introducing a carbon tax which will add a further $300 to household power bills? 15:15 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for that question. The government absolutely understands the concern felt by electricity consumers about price rises that are occurring under the regulatory framework that has been in place not just under this government but under the past government. The member for Boothby is trying to draw a link between these price rises and the impact of a carbon price we do not yet have. That demonstrates what a baseless scare campaign they are engaged in. The fact is that there are pressures in the system and prices are going up and that is putting pressures on families. The opposition seek to say that is somehow a consequence of decisions that have been taken by this government. They know that to be completely false. Dr Southcott TK6 Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: I highlighted the utility bills and asked why the government is adding to it by $300 through a carbon tax. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The Treasurer is responding to the question. He knows that he has to be directly relevant, but he is responding. Mr SWAN 2V5 On the eve of the last election, the member for Groom was openly honest about this, which is rare for the opposition. He said that prices are going up, and he said why: because there has not been sufficient investment in the network. They are very embarrassed about this statement from the member for Groom. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 The Treasurer will resume his seat until the House comes to order. Mr SWAN 2V5 Everybody in this House knows that prices are going up and it has been caused by inadequate investment in the system over a long period of time. Those opposite might seek to deny it now, but they were open about it prior to the last election. For them to go out there now and run a baseless scare campaign somehow linking it to a future carbon price demonstrates just how dishonest they are. They know that the country has to face up to this tough decision. The government will face up to this decision. We will take a responsible decision in the interests of all consumers. Employment 4855 15:18 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston My question is to the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women. How are key components of the budget targeted to get the very long term unemployed back into work? 15:18 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide I thank the member for Kingston for her question. I know that in the electorate she represents, which has some 2,068 very long term unemployed people, they will certainly welcome the additional assistance we have announced. We on this side are very proud of the 700,000 jobs that have been created since we have been in government. But we also see that, as we head towards an unemployment rate of some 4.5 per cent with an additional 500,000 jobs to be created in the coming years, this provides us with a unique opportunity. As a nation, we are faced with a unique chance to transform the lives of the very long term unemployed and to break the cycle of welfare dependency. As a government, we are absolutely determined that we are not going to leave anyone behind in this period of growth. In this year's budget the government is investing an additional $227.9 million in new measures to specifically target the very long term unemployed. In Australia, currently 230,000 people are classified as very long term unemployed. We know that once a job seeker has been unemployed for one year they have a 54 per cent chance of being unemployed for at least another year; so we need to step in and break this cycle. Of the new funding, $94.6 million will be used to create 35,000 wage subsidies to be paid to employers who take on and retain people who have been unemployed for more than two years. This will create powerful new opportunities across the nation. These subsidies, totalling around $6,000 each, will be paid for at least six months and will be available to both private businesses and social enterprises, creating the opportunity to transform the lives of very long term unemployed Australians and those of their family members and their communities. We also know that people who have been unemployed for a very long period can have difficulty accessing full-time work, because they often do not have the work experience and skills that employers are looking for. We know that a lack of activity is detrimental to people's health and wellbeing and undermines their job readiness, so the government is putting in place stronger requirements and more resources in order to keep the very long term unemployed active and job ready. Under previous arrangements of both this government and the previous government, job seekers only had to meet activity requirements for six months each year. Those who are now very long term unemployed will in future, under this government, be required to be active in their engagement for 11 months each year. Those job seekers will be required to undertake activities like job training, volunteering, job trials and Work for the Dole if they are to continue to be eligible for income support. We are allocating some $133 million through this budget to fund these activities. We know the Australian economy needs workers if we are going to take advantage of the minerals boom and manage the challenges of an ageing population. This presents a very great opportunity for Australians who have been out of work for a large amount of time, who face significant barriers to re-engagement in the labour market. Our government is determined to provide those Australians with the incentives and the support they need in order to get back into the labour market. We are proud to have presented a budget directed towards this. Carbon Pricing 4856 15:22 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that an average school in Victoria is spending up to $58,000 a year on power and other utilities. Will the government compensate schools like these for the increase in electricity prices as a result of the carbon tax or does the government expect these increased costs to be met through higher charges to parents? 15:22 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the member for his question because putting in place a price on carbon is a very significant and fundamental reform for the future of our country. In the past when this country has faced up to the challenges before it and put in place very significant reforms, like we did in the late eighties and early nineties, there were always very big scare campaigns being run during those times, particularly by those opposite. And they are at it again. The fact is that our economy would not have come through the global recession in the shape that it did if it had not been for the actions that were put in place during that period, particularly reforms like national superannuation, which was so important to get us through the global recession. The point I want to make is that you have to face up to the hard reforms if you want to be honest with people. If you want to talk to people about the future, you cannot put the hard reforms in the too-hard basket. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer was asked about compensation for schools as a result of higher electricity prices driven by a carbon tax. I would ask you to ask him to answer that question. It did not need debate or any— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The member for Sturt will resume his place. The Treasurer knows his responsibilities in responding to the question. Mr SWAN 2V5 I was explaining why we need to put a price on carbon. It is because it is absolutely essential to the job security of Australians and our future prosperity. That is why the government is engaging in a thorough consultation with the wider community, the multiparty committee and the business community. We are working closely to design an emissions trading scheme. This parliament was within hours of an emissions trading scheme the year before last when the member for Wentworth decided that he could not do it and the Leader of the Opposition knocked him off. The fact is that this country has to price carbon. We on this side of the House believe in doing something about dangerous climate change— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! Those on my left will come to order. Mr SWAN 2V5 unlike those on that side of the House, who are now dominated by the climate change deniers and led by the Leader of the Opposition. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The Treasurer will bring his response to a conclusion. Mr SWAN 2V5 So we will go through a consultation process to design an emissions trading scheme which is fair to the country, fair to households and fair to business. Indigenous Education 4857 15:25 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister inform the House of the government's commitment to Indigenous education and how this has been received? 15:26 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I thank the member for Fremantle for her question. Today is National Sorry Day, as the parliament has noted. It is more than three years since the historic apology to the stolen generation, one of the most important moments in the history of this parliament—in fact, in our history. The acknowledgement of past injustices and the commitment to the healing journey means that we now must redouble our efforts to close the gap. Not only today with National Sorry Day but with the beginning of reconciliation week, I think we as a nation have an opportunity to recognise the past, to understand that there was injustice and suffering, and to know that we are on the path to healing. I did note my colleagues the Minister for Indigenous Health and the member for Lingiari reminding Australians that we are providing continuing support of some $54 million for programs to help the Bringing them home generation, the Link Up program and others. Right across Australia we will see Australian schools—public schools, independent schools and Catholic schools—having ceremonies that recognise and highlight the heritage of the first peoples, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These are terrific events. They create the opportunity for a more optimistic future. It means that young people, by participating in these events, are well placed to continue this reconciliation journey and to participate in it. We know that we are profoundly committed to closing the gap, and education is the key. It means work, training and further study. It means independence, opportunity and hope. The fact is that education breaks the poverty cycle, a cycle that is experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We know the gap between the educational outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people is unacceptably large, but we also know that there are some really good things happening out there in Australian schools that are changing lives. Yes, the national statistics tell us a sobering story, but the efforts of many of our schools, using the $2.5 billion national partnerships money that this government has brought forward, is encouraging. Let me just identify a few of those encouraging stories. In Western Australia, 94 per cent of participating national partnerships schools are reporting improved engagement and participation of Aboriginal parents and communities. In the Hume region in Victoria, literacy intervention programs are seeing Indigenous student participation in year 3 NAPLAN reading move to over 90 per cent. In New South Wales we have Aboriginal community engagement strategies implemented in over 270 schools. Ninety-three have now got Aboriginal elders or community members working with teachers. That makes a big difference in a school. Two hundred and forty-four teachers from all the education sectors are undertaking Aboriginal education and cultural programs. Over 1,200 government school teachers are participating in training courses to support Aboriginal students. This makes a huge difference. The investment makes a huge difference. Sometimes there is one committed person who can make a difference. To finish, my favourite story is of the Elliott School in the remote Northern Territory, which employs a 71-year-old woman as a home liaison officer. She visits family homes and talks to kids, parents and carers. There was an average attendance of 60 per cent in semester 2 in 2009; it is now 72 per cent and their NAPLAN results are showing improvements. I think that this investment and some of the examples I have highlighted show what an important role education plays. In this House, we are committed to reconciliation and continuing the investment to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Ms Gillard 83L Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 4858 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:30 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER HH4 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DUTTON 00AKI Yes. The SPEAKER HH4 Please proceed. Mr DUTTON 00AKI During question time today I asked a question of the Treasurer about a drug that had been recommended by the independent PBAC to the government. At the conclusion of the answer to my question there was an interjection, a false interjection, from the Minister for Health and Ageing to suggest that she had not received that advice. I thought that was quite misleading and inappropriate and I seek leave to table this document. Ms Roxon interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! First of all, that is not a proper personal explanation. The member for Dickson has sought leave to table a document. Leave not granted. The SPEAKER HH4 The member for Dickson will resume his seat. The Minister for Health and Ageing will withdraw. Ms Roxon 83K I withdraw. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! It is not helpful to make comments like that. 15:31 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER HH4 Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUDGE M2Y I do. The SPEAKER HH4 Please proceed. Mr TUDGE M2Y It follows from my comment yesterday. Having examined both the Hansard and the government statement that was issued post question time yesterday, it is clear that— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The member for Aston must go to where he has been misrepresented, not give a preamble. Mr TUDGE M2Y Mr Speaker, I refer again to the Treasurer's comments yesterday in question time when he claimed that I have said recently that I do not support the direct action policy of the coalition. Mr Albanese R36 Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Aston gave a personal explanation on this issue yesterday—precisely on this issue. He cannot get a go every day. The SPEAKER HH4 We would all get through a lot more if we were all quiet. I find it very strange that some people suggest it is the case only with certain individuals. The member for Aston will resume his seat. I think that this is a very rare attempt to follow up on something where there has already been a personal explanation. I might excuse the member for Aston, as he is a newer member and given that he has perhaps seen what members of longer standing do. If members do not have respect for the present occupant of the chair they might at least have some respect for the institution of Speaker. I simply indicate to the member for Aston that if something else has happened then it is only that that can be referred to, not what happened in question time yesterday. I remind the member for Aston that personal explanations are on indulgence, which is given by the Speaker and can be withdrawn by the Speaker. The member for Aston must explain to me where he has a further grievance. The member for Aston. Mr TUDGE M2Y Thank you, Mr Speaker. There was also a statement issued by the government after question time which also suggested that I did not support the direct action plan. In both instances— The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The member will go to that statement. Mr TUDGE M2Y In both instances they are incorrect and have misrepresented my position. I have never made any comments on direct action other than to be supportive of it. The SPEAKER HH4 Order! The member for Aston will resume his seat. The member for Aston has explained where he has been misrepresented. COMMITTEES 4859 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 4859 Report 4859 The SPEAKER HH4 I present the Selection Committee report No. 22 relating to the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in today's Hansard. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 25 May 2011 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 25 May 2011. 2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made— Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry: Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011; Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 2011; Offshore Petroleum (Royalty) Amendment Bill 2011; Offshore Resources Legislation Amendment (Personal Property Securities) Bill 2011; and Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Regulatory Levies Legislation Amendment (2011 Measures No. 2) Bill 2011; Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications: Navigation Amendment Bill 2011. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 4859 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 44 of 2010-11 4859 The SPEAKER HH4 I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 44 of 2010-11 entitled Performance audit: AusAID's management of tertiary training assistance: Australian Agency for International Development. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 4860 DOCUMENTS Presentation 4860 Mr ALBANESE R36 A document is presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. COMMITTEES 4860 COMMITTEES National Broadband Network Committee 4860 Membership 4860 The SPEAKER HH4 I have received advice from Mr Scott nominating himself to be a participating member of the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network. Mr ALBANESE R36 by leave—I move: That Mr Scott be appointed a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 4860 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 4860 15:38 The SPEAKER HH4 I have received letters from the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for Kennedy proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important—despite our tetchiness during the day—that is, that proposed by the honourable member for North Sydney, namely: The failure of the Treasurer to respond to imminent threats to the Australian economy. 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— 15:38 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney The Treasurer could be forgiven for not responding to this MPI because he is indeed himself the most significant threat to the Australian economy, and that is why the Treasurer is not able to deal with the matter in any simple way. That has been perfectly revealed during the course of this week, when the Treasurer has engaged in a rather slimy and slippery defence of his own position in relation to the mining tax and the concessions and the reduction of concessions sought by the Western Australian government in relation to iron ore fines. With the government determined to close down any sort of debate in relation to this matter, this is now an opportunity to explain what really happened. On 1 February 2010 the Grants Commission had an extensive discussion and reaffirmation about high and low royalties and differences between lump sum iron ore, which is high, and of course iron ore fines, which were regarded as low. On 10 March the Western Australian Treasurer, Troy Buswell, wrote to the Treasurer wanting confirmation on the entitlement of Western Australia's share of GST. Not long afterwards, on 2 May, the Treasurer announced, with the former Prime Minister, the second iteration of the mining tax—the first being the one in the Henry review. Then, a few days later, the Under Treasurer of Western Australia wrote, quite obviously concerned, to Dr Ken Henry, stating: … I seek your urgent confirmation that "scheduled increases" in Western Australia would include the removal of existing iron ore royalty rate concessions, which would see both fine and lump iron ore royalty rates being levied at 7.5 % … It is quite interesting, because the government, through the FOI process, redacted the last paragraph, which has now been revealed, and I quote: 'This issue was previously raised in correspondence between the then Western Australian Treasurer, the Hon. Troy Buswell, and the Hon. Wayne Swan ahead of the March 2010 meeting of the ministerial council, where assurances were given that the Commonwealth would direct the Grants Commission on this matter.' So, quite clearly, by 10 May last year the Treasurer was properly informed that Western Australia was going to wind back the concessions in relation to iron ore fines. That letter was never responded to as far as we are aware. So, when the Secretary of the Treasury in Western Australia wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury here in Canberra concerned about an issue directly going to the matter that has been debated this week, there was no response, and until this day we understand there has not been a response to the Western Australian government. Far be it for the Treasurer to claim that he was not informed. On 17 May the Treasurer received his own brief from the Department of Treasury and it went on to say: 'Western Australia indicated at a recent Commonwealth Grants Commission meeting prior to the announcement of the RSPT it was considering increasing the royalty rate on iron ore fines from the current rate of 5.625 per cent to 7.5 per cent rate for lump ore.' It is not qualified, it is not talking about the Pilbara, it is not being in any way specific about a particular class of iron ore fines; it is the general concession applying to iron ore fines. The Treasurer knew this, because on the very same day that he received this advice from the Treasury he addressed the Western Australian Chamber of Commerce, where he said, 'We are prepared to talk further with state governments who might have been making their own plans to capture a fairer share of resource wealth through lifting royalties.' A fairer share. So the Treasurer now is so critical of Western Australia for removing the concessions on iron ore fines that he not only said that the states understandably have to do it but he wants to talk to them about it. On the same day at a doorstop, he was asked by a journalist: Premier Colin Barnett has flagged that he wants to increase iron ore royalties to the global rate of 7½ per cent. He flagged that before the Henry Review. Will you say yes or no to whether that 7½ per cent royalty rate— will apply. We know that this Treasurer never answers a yes or no question, so I am going to cut short the very long-winded answer. The Treasurer then said: The fact that Premier Barnett is looking at very substantial increases in the royalties demonstrates the point that I was making to you before – that these royalty regimes have not kept pace with the underlying value of the resource, which all Western Australians and Australians do own. So now, when Western Australia does exactly what he was encouraging them to do, he stands up and criticises the Western Australian government. Of course, on 2 July 2010 the government announced the deal that they had done with Xstrata, BHP and Rio. In the fact sheet associated with that deal, it says: The MRRT will also provide a full credit for state royalties paid by a taxpayer in respect of a mining project. It goes on to say: State royalties are assumed to be equal to 7.5 per cent of sales revenue and are credited against the MRRT liability to produce the net MRRT liability. What does that mean? It means that there was always an assumption by this government that the state governments would remove concessions and it was prepared to rebate up to 7.5 per cent. Quite plainly the government is encouraging confusion in relation to this matter. On 20 October, and the Prime Minister herself has quoted this in this parliament, Premier Barnett says on ABC radio that they have no plan to increase royalties. That is where the Prime Minister stopped, but he actually went on to say, 'we did get rid of some concessions, and perhaps some other concessions that in time might be phased out.' That is what he said—so he is going to phase it out. On 21 October Premier Barnett is quoted in the West Australian as saying: The state has no intention of increasing royalties but we will certainly preserve the right to do so. In November 2010, the Western Australian Treasury said in a submission to the Commonwealth Grants Commission that the Premier had recently indicated that the state had no intention of increasing royalties, but they would certainly preserve the right to do so. On 16 November, the Western Australian Under Secretary, failing to have received a response to his first letter, writes again to the Secretary to the Treasury asking what is going to happen to the Western Australian state budget due to the treatment of royalties. In February 2011, the Treasurer writes to the chairperson of the Grants Commission—he referred to this today in question time—saying that, in regard to the removal of iron ore fines royalty rate concessions in 2010, 'the classification of iron ore fines should not move between mineral royalty rates groups in between methodology reviews'. In relation to the first round of the wind-back concessions, the Treasurer, here, wrote to the Grants Commission and said 'don't penalise Western Australia'. It was the very same principle, the very same issue and was based on the very same assumption, that a royalty rate regime would be at 7.5 per cent. Premier Barnett, just a few days later, said on Perth radio that if they wanted to refund to the mining companies increases in state royalties, then they had to pay for that out of their own revenue; that was their choice. On 18 May, last week, the chief of staff of the Western Australian Premier rings up the chief of staff to the Treasurer and he says, 'We are going to lift the royalties in the budget tomorrow; we are going to remove the concession on iron ore fines tomorrow, in the budget.' Two days later, the Treasurer goes into the media and claims it came as an enormous shock—he says: Well first of all Mr Barnett did not communicate that he was going to do this to us. So, over the last four days, the Treasurer has stood by his words of last Friday. He claims that what he said was absolutely right—it all came as a surprise, even though there is a huge amount of information that proves that it was not a surprise. He said it came out of the blue. All of the evidence now points to the fact that not only is the Treasurer confused, not only is the Treasurer confusing, but the Treasurer is incapable and incompetent when it comes to managing the challenges of the Australian economy. This is a pattern of behaviour from his earliest days as Treasurer, in 2008, when he said that the inflation genie was out of the bottle. He went on to introduce a budget in 2008 that was in fact inflationary. It put up the price of alcopops, it put up the price of cars and it would effectively put up the price of private health insurance. That is what he did—he introduced an inflationary budget at exactly the time that he and the then Prime Minister were declaring war on inflation. Then came the financial crisis. The Treasurer, so lacking in belief in his own integrity, so lacking in belief in his own competence, hides behind the Secretary to the Treasury, always releasing documents and private advisory notes from the Secretary to the Treasury to himself. He is so lacking in confidence that he is hiding all the way behind Ken Henry. It took us weeks to find out that in fact in that crisis room there was no Governor of the Reserve Bank; it was all being filtered through the Secretary to the Treasury, the man who was hiding the real Treasurer of Australia. What happened? Mistakes were made. There were a number of different positions on the government guarantee on deposits. Do you remember that? There was an unlimited guarantee on deposits, and then it was limited to $1 million, and reclassified again, not only creating confusion but also muddling the protections that were necessary for the financial system. Then we saw the stimulus package—a stimulus package that we had the courage to vote against because we could see early on that there was waste—waste in the pink batts program, waste in the school halls program and waste with the $900 cheques being sent out to people. Tens of thousands of those cheques were going not only overseas to stimulate offshore economies but also to dead people—as if there was anything that could stimulate them! Of course there is one program that I do not forget that was part of a rescue package that the Treasurer is so proud of—I can see the Special Minister of State smiling—and that is Ruddbank. What about Ruddbank? That was a cracker of an idea. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer wanted to set up their own bank to bankroll property development. The iconic infrastructure that they said they would finance at that crucial time was Vision Tower in Brisbane. The Treasurer himself said it was a great idea to fund that—the only problem was, it went bankrupt three days later. That was the leadership of the Labor Party. But, of course, it comes down to the fundamentals—the deficit. What an unsightly brawl between the Treasurer and the Prime Minister back in 2008. It took them 21 days to work out after MYEFO that they might have to go into deficit. Then in 2009 the Treasurer could not bring himself to say what the deficit was in the budget speech. He broke new ground. Not only did he break new ground by refusing to name the deficit; he broke new ground because it was so big. Of course, we all remember the government coming in here time and time again saying they were temporary deficits. They look pretty damn permanent to me. When it comes to debt, we all remember how the Treasurer was encouraging the then Prime Minister not to mention the number—$200 billion. Do you remember that? It was too big a number for them to get their minds around. Even on this budget night, when the budget net debt went from $94 billion to $107 billion, the Treasurer said it was tiny. That is the word he used: 'tiny'—'very tiny' he said on 2UE. When it comes to banking—this is a Treasurer that has no leadership—on 40 occasions he warned the banks, 'Do not increase interest rates beyond the Reserve Bank rate,' and then of course they did. He was going to ride in on a horse and stop them with exit fees. That was the solution he was going to come up with. And on tax: we have had 19 new tax grabs since 2007. We have had the Henry tax review, and to solve all Australia's tax problems we are going to have a summit, just like the 2020 Summit. There are a whole lot of issues here that just keep going on and on. The Treasurer is asked a simple question about inflation and he cannot answer it—it takes him minutes. He is asked a simple question about a flood levy and he cannot answer how many people are going to have to pay it. He was asked by the member for Longman, 'When did Labor last deliver a surplus?' He could not answer it. He went on ABC radio the next day and he still could not answer it. This Treasurer is the biggest threat to the Australian economy. (Time expired) 15:54 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I listened very carefully to what the shadow Treasurer had to say on this matter of public importance. Unfortunately, he tended to vindicate what one anonymous senior staffer said at Menzies House: that the shadow Treasurer, if he ever became Treasurer, would be an incredible stain on the Liberal Party. I find that the Liberal Party and indeed its country branch allies, the National Party, have never seen a myth they do not like to exaggerate. I was listening carefully to what the shadow Treasurer had to say. As I listened to him try to pretend that Australia is not in fact an OECD nation that is doing far better than other nations in the OECD, I was reminded of the Liberal Party's ongoing commitment to untruths. I was reminded of the weapons of mass destruction that we never found, I was reminded of the children overboard and I was reminded of Work Choices. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! I realise it is Thursday afternoon, but there are far too many audible interjections. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Even so, not content with the legacy of the past, the shadow Treasurer wishes to renew the great tradition of Liberal myth making with his unfair and factually unbased attack on a great Treasurer. We will start off with the exhibits of this mischievous Hans Christian Andersen like bit of bully boy bluster from the wannabe Treasurer of the wannabe tea party of Australian politics. I have listened very carefully to this discussion that somehow the Western Australian government did not tell anyone about its desire to increase royalties. As a part of the exercise, I have on me some of the great culprits of the current political debate. I have some iron ore fines here. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 The member for Hughes will not interject. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I have here some iron ore fines. I am sure most of the Liberal Party have never seen any. In the same tradition, because they might not actually know what an iron ore fine is, I also wish to refresh the memory of the House. On at least eight occasions—not seven, not six, not five but eight occasions—Premier Barnett said he would not increase royalties. He said in an article in the Australian Financial Review—not exactly Green Left Weekly—titled 'Barnett rejects iron ore royalty rise', on 4 September 2010: In the future I think there is a case for the fines iron ore rate to be equivalent to the lump royalty rate or closer to that, but it is not something that we are moving on now. It won't be in next year's budget. For the benefit of some of the members opposite, that is this budget. He said, 'We will not be moving on royalties in the immediate future.' As much as the opposition may seek to shout its way into government and shout over the facts, Premier Barnett said on ABC radio on 20 October 2010, 'We have no plan to increase royalties.' The following day, in that paper of record the West Australian, he said, 'The state has no intention of increasing royalties.' In an interview with the Australian, another paper of record, on 30 October 2010, 'I have no plans to increase royalties.' He then said on a fifth occasion—not content with four occasions— Opposition members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I am glad to see that the member for Kooyong has recovered. He then said, in his government's own submission to the Commonwealth Grants Commission in November 2010 which was sent to the Treasurer's office by the undersecretary, in relation to iron ore royalties, 'Further changes are not on the horizon.' As the Premier recently indicated—that would be Premier Barnett, for the edification of the opposition backbench—'the state has no intention of increasing royalties'. How often does a politician have to say he is not going to increase royalties before those opposite will believe him? On a sixth occasion, on 21 December 2010 Reuters reported that they said there was no proposal to increase royalties again. Six times it was said. That was clearly not enough. Mr Tony Smith interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member for Casey may be interested to learn that on 23 February 2011—that would be this year—it was reported in the Financial Review: Colin Barnett said there were no plans to lift the royalty rate for fines iron ore from 5.6 per cent to match the lump rate of 7.5 per cent. Mr Barnett said that while the different rates didn't make sense to him, the government had no plans to increase the fines rate in the foreseeable future. I would assume that in the common parlance of the great English language that the foreseeable future would go for at least the next three months. That day, on 6PR—a radio station, if you were not aware of that—he made it very clear: 'We don't have any plans to increase royalties in Western Australia.' Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! I understand that the interjections are good natured, but I am finding it difficult to listen to the minister. Honourable members on my left will remain silent. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG No-one is keeping the member for Casey here. We had always reserved the right to do that, but I understand that they do have to turn up because some of their colleagues missed divisions last night. On 6PR radio Premier Barnett said on those magic airwaves of the radio: 'All I'll say is simply that we are not contemplating one at present.' That was less than eight weeks before the budget. Even if the opposition are still content to besmirch the reputation of a great Treasurer by trying to pretend that Premier Barnett did not say these things, we have to then actually look at what his accomplishments are. I think that, whenever you look at a matter of public importance— Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The honourable member for Kooyong will remain silent for the remainder of the MPI. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG We can only wish, Mr Deputy Speaker. When we look at this matter of public importance, I would have thought the shadow Treasurer, in order to have a debate about the merits of the government, would realise this is not a one-horse race. We have a beast called the opposition. I am using a horse analogy as opposed to any other point about that. Mr Tony Smith interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG It is a saying, Member for Casey—you need to get out and about. I am going to use several criteria to establish why I think our Treasurer is better than their shadow Treasurer. They are fair criteria; I will submit them for the House's consideration. The first will be spending, the second will be savings, the third will be inflation, the fourth will be the tax-to-GDP ratio— Opposition members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG GDP, for the opposition backbenchers, is the gross domestic product. I will cover our handling of the global financial crisis—we would like to conveniently forget the war, would we not? We will look at our handling of the natural disasters and we will look at our fiscal position. In fact, why do we not put in a plan for Australia as a criterion and why do we not talk about jobs? The jobs number is the one that dares not speak its name among the opposition. These are the criteria on which, I think, you can judge our Treasurer versus their imposter. Let us start with spending. We kept real spending growth, and we are keeping real spending growth, at one per cent. That is the lowest growth rate of any five-year period since the 1980s. Mr Hawke interjecting— Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The honourable members for Mitchell and Herbert will also remain silent for the balance of this debate on the matter of public importance. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG In the last five years of the unlamented, departed coalition government, real spending growth reached 3.7 per cent. There is a beautiful set of numbers, as a former Prime Minister would have said—us, one per cent real spending growth; them, 3.7 per cent real spending growth. You cannot trust those people with the cash registers. Then we get to savings. We have made $100 billion in savings since we have been in power and all you can do, when we put up the savings gold medal, is choose to come not second or third—you want to be right at the back of the queue. You want to look at a $10.6 billion black hole. Then we look at the tax-to-GDP ratio. This is a number which the opposition conveniently overlooks, because the opposition are the great myth makers of Australian politics. They say one thing and they do something else. The tax-to-GDP ratio is Commonwealth tax receipts as a proportion of Australian economic activity. Let me put it in context. We are taking 21. 8 per cent of GDP or, to put it another way— Mr Tony Smith 00APG What is GDP? Mr SHORTEN 00ATG It is gross domestic product, Member for Casey. You will have your chance. Mr Tony Smith interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member for Casey has in fact had his chance. I am disappointed that they do not promote him to the front bench; he has more wit than half the people in front of him. Our tax-to-GDP ratio is 21.8 per cent. If you imagine the Australian economy as being $100,000, under us you are paying $21,800 in tax. But what was it under the scallywags of the opposition when they were in government? It was 25 per cent. So there was old Mr Howard and Mr Costello putting their hands in your pocket for $25,000 in every $100,000 in the Australian economy. We are better at keeping down the tax-to-GDP ratio. But it does not stop there, members of the House. Let us look at our handling, and the Treasurer's handling, of the global financial crisis. I know that the shadow Treasurer once famously called the global financial crisis a mere hiccup. Let me tell the House: it was more than a mere hiccup around the world. Thank goodness we had a Labor administration and Wayne Swan as our Treasurer. If you do not take my word for it—unfortunately some in the opposition are not enamoured with what I am saying, because the truth hurts—let us have a look at what the OECD said. Mr Tehan interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The OECD, Member for Wannon—it is not the name of a type of cow. The OECD said it considered Australia's stimulus package to be among the most effective in the OECD, that it helped to avoid a recession and that there was already an infrastructure deficit from the past from continuous underinvestment in that area. And we know who was responsible for that—those opposite. There was also the IMF. Before the conspiracy theorists leap to their acronym dictionary, let me be clear that I am not talking about the International Metalworkers Federation; I am talking about the International Monetary Fund. They have endorsed what our government did. Then let us look at Peter Anderson, the chief executive of ACCI. On 12 May 2009 he said: The investment by this government was overdue and will contribute to a more efficient and competitive economy when recovery arrives. In the Australian Financial Review on 3 June, 21 economists said: Deploying our strong balance sheet to use otherwise idle resources—or to put it more compellingly, deserted factories and unemployed workers—to build assets that improve our lives and our economy in the future, seems much more appealing; much more commonsensical than retreating into phobias. Sound advice for the opposition. We have seen more and more people endorse our handling of the GFC. But it does not stop there. When the natural disasters struck our country—tragically, in many cases, with loss of life, but also incredibly significantly economically—who was there to help rebuild the roads and the schools and the community? Was it the coalition when they were asked to help lift resources? No, not at all. They were missing in action. Mr Truss interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG No medals for bravery for the Leader of the National Party. No medals for bravery for the National Party. They abandoned their own people. I admit their members of parliament did good work for individuals distressed by the floods, but as a party, when they came into this place, they opposed the flood levy. Let us look at plans for Australia. Only one side of this House has a plan for Australia. Mr Hunt interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Here comes the member for Flinders, ready to another write a thesis on climate change—I do not think so. We have a plan for Australia. We have a plan for jobs. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! The honourable member for Flinders knows it is grossly disorderly to stand and shout at the minister who has the call. If he wants to interject, he should do so from his seat in a dignified way. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG He may well want to, but I appreciate the Deputy Speaker's ruling. I have gone through a list of what we have done and a list of what they do not stand for. I have gone through the accomplishments of our Treasurer and I have also examined this specious and baseless attack—pretending that the Premier of Western Australia had not said, on at least eight occasions, that they were not going to increase royalties. But there is a little bit more here for the information of the House. If the opposition seriously want to be a government—we hear them barking and we hear them noisily shouting, 'Election! Election!'—then what they have to do is reassure a whole lot of people out there that they actually have a plan. At the moment, people cannot be confident that the opposition have a view about what to do. Any mug can knock, but not everyone is capable of running the show, and that is the challenge for the opposition. The people opposite do not have a view on superannuation. They are happy to put 15 per cent superannuation in their own pockets or defined benefit—beautiful money if you can get it—and I do not mind that. But what I object to— Mr Briggs IYU That is weak, Bill. You are weak. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Member for Mayo, you should be ashamed of your position. You will not support the people in your electorate getting 12 per cent superannuation. Mr Briggs interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 The member for Mayo will remain silent. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Stand up and do the right thing by your electorate— Mr Briggs interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 I warn the honourable member for Mayo. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Stand up and support your punters who might not have enough money when they retire. Why not support 12 per cent? Indeed, if they are so ready for government, why are they backing conflicting remuneration structures for financial advisers? Why not, if people need good financial advice, let financial planners work with their customers instead of get all the commissions and conflicted remuneration structures? Mr Briggs interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 I remind the member for Mayo that he is under warning. One more word and he is out. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG We see a lot of contradictions in the opposition. They do not want to tackle problem gambling. They are not particularly interested in our measures to lower the corporate tax rate from 30 per cent to 29 per cent. They are not interested in supporting— Opposition members interjecting— Mr Danby WF6 You didn't even support the Pacific Highway. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 The member for Melbourne Ports is not in his seat. He will cease interjecting. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for his ongoing commitment to the Australian economy and the Australian people. The opposition will not even deal with issues of climate change. It is one thing to knock our plan—Her Majesty's loyal opposition have the right to disagree with the government—but it seems to me that there is an obligation, if you are going to knock the plan, to say what you are going to do about it. We know that they do have a plan to spend $10 billion picking winners amongst the biggest polluting companies, but that is not a real plan. We believe that we have a very good Treasurer, and we think the shadow Treasurer needs to pull up his socks. (Time expired) 16:09 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. It is interesting to note that, when the Howard government was in power, we had a regime that delivered consistent surpluses year after year. We had a government that had the confidence of the Australian people. We had a government that people believed could deliver efficiently and effectively. But sadly, with the arrival of the Rudd and Gillard governments, there has been a loss of faith by the Australian people in the ability of their federal government both to deliver and to deal with imminent threats to the Australian economy. It is interesting to note that the shadow Treasurer highlighted the fact that it is this government and this Treasurer who present the greatest threat to the Australian economy. They have a complete inability to deal with Australia's economic challenges. On this Treasurer's watch we have seen an economy go from surplus to deficit, the levels of government debt reach record levels and this country plunge into deficit. In typical Labor fashion, this government has increased taxes, spent at record levels, wasted billions of dollars and plunged the country into a record $55 billion deficit. Labor is governing as they always do. They have not delivered a surplus since 1989, and this is simply business as usual for a Labor government. We hear the Treasurer speak of future surpluses that are just over the horizon—' coming soon to a country near you'—but the reality is that he has not delivered a surplus, and I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that he will not deliver a surplus, because this government does not have the courage to ease spending, to pay back its debts and to bring the budget back into surplus. It is into tax grabs and debt financing rather than responsible economic management. If this government was fully focused on delivering a surplus, we would not need to increase the gross debt limit to $250 billion. This Treasurer is simply incapable of delivering a surplus that he speaks about in the future. By 2014, the government will be spending $20 million a day on interest payments alone, just to service its debt. This is money that could be going into roads, into schools, into better health services and into services for regional Australia. One of the interesting risks to the Australian economy is a project that is being trumpeted by this government as the way of the future: the National Broadband Network. The potential for blowouts in costs and increasing burdens for taxpayers because of the National Broadband Network is greater than for any other project undertaken by a government in our history. There are already very bad warning signs—some very imminent threats—relating to the National Broadband Network. It is becoming clear that the NBN will never meet its IRR projections or its revenue projections, that it will be over cost and that it is not going to deliver the sorts of economic boosts that the government claims it will. Let us go to the interesting point of the project's progress at the moment—the issue of time, which is so very important in the final cost at which this progress project would be delivered. Virtually every element of this project has been delayed. The Tasmanian rollout has been delayed 10 months, the completion of the first mainland sites has been delayed, NBN Co. have indefinitely suspended the tender process for contractors for infrastructure and now we have found that the second release-site stage has also been delayed. The $11 billion deal with Telstra has also been delayed—it is some six months behind schedule. The NBN Co. is pointing the finger of blame for delays. The blame has been levelled at contractors, at the ACCC and at Telstra. These are all supposed to be reasons that the rollout is behind schedule. NBN Co.'s business case makes it clear that the rollout will have that impact on the project viability and the return. It is interesting to note that, by 30 June 2012, the rollout is projected to reach 35,000 homes. But 15 months into the rollout, how many homes do we have connected? Instead of the 35,000 homes, do we have 10,000 homes connected? No, we do not have 10,000. Do we have 5,000 homes connected? No, we do not have 5,000. In fact, we have 607 homes connected to the NBN. Mr Coulton HWN Seven in Armidale! Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM 'Seven in Armidale!' the Nationals Chief Whip adds. He is very right—there are seven in Armidale. I will get to Armidale in a minute. So, rather than having reached the target of 35,000 homes in just over 12 months time, we are well on the way: we have 607. Yet 'Trust me,' says Senator Conroy! You have to look at the take-up, which is another important part about the viability of this project. What have they achieved in Tasmania? Of the 4,000 eligible households, they achieved a 15 per cent take-up. That was when people could receive the project for free. So they came along and spent $50 billion on a project, they gave it away and only got a take-up of 15 per cent amongst eligible households. It is unlike the iPhone when people queued in the snow to get one—they gave it away for free and people still did not take it up. They are 15 months into the rollout and they have 607 customers and 784 staff. I think the minister should make it his No. 1 priority to make the number of staff fewer than the number of customers. It would be a good objective to have a number of customers greater than the number of staff. It is also interesting to note the Armidale rollout. There was a lot of fanfare and discussion about the first mainland site, only to achieve a take-up of seven customers—the magnificent seven, as I referred to them. I was really pleased that those seven people signed up; it would have been embarrassing if no-one had signed up. One of those customers was Mr Stroud, who signed up because he wanted access games. The NBN enabled Mr Stroud to play World of Warcraft at the highest level. I am pleased that he is pleased, but when you consider that it is a $50 billion project and when you consider the opportunity cost of capital I think it is a real issue for this country that a major part of the demand for broadband services is for recreational services. It seems incredible that we are investing so heavily at a time when the demand drivers that are going to deliver the return on investment for this project cannot be demonstrated. We are paying billions of dollars that could have been spent on other vital infrastructure projects so that Mr Stroud can, to his delight, play World of Warcraft at the highest level. It does raise very serious revenue questions. We have the IT industry raising questions about the cost and complexity. Why did NBN Co. suspend tender negotiations? There were 14 companies who came in well above budget. What does that say? NBN Co. are trying to say, 'It is not that our budget was wrong and that we underestimated the cost; it is that the contractors got it wrong.' It is interesting that the CEO of one of the 14 tenderers, Mr David Stewart of Leighton Holdings, said on Tuesday in reference to NBN Co.: … some of the things that people are asking us to do are impossible for us to even price. What confidence can you have in an organisation that at this early stage has contractors unable to price some of the proposals that are put to them only 15 months into a rollout that will take longer than a decade? Mr Stewart continued: Often, you find with any new enterprise that is set up as a special purpose vehicle, all the experts decide they can change all the Australian standards, change the contract conditions, change the risk profile and fix up an industry that was probably OK before they started. This government and NBN Co. have no idea about the price pressures facing the IT industry. They have no idea how to deliver this project on time and on budget. A cost of this magnitude is putting the Australian government budget under significant threat. With the revenue projections likely to fall well under what was expected for this project, the already slim return of seven per cent is absolutely at risk. This is a potential financial disaster that will have to be financed by the taxpayers of this country. It is an imminent threat to getting this government budget back into surplus. It is an imminent threat to the rollout of other infrastructure projects in the future. There will be a diversion of capital from projects that would deliver higher rates of return to one that quite clearly is not going to deliver the rates of return that have been promised. So under this Treasurer's watch the country has plunged from surplus into deficit. This Treasurer has no notion about putting down a budget that will set this country up for the future. We have a Treasurer who is unfit for the position he holds. 16:19 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on this matter of public importance that was proposed by the member for North Sydney. I note that the matter of public importance was, 'The failure of the Treasurer to respond to imminent threats to the Australian economy'. I must say that I have listened long and hard to the protestations of the member for North Sydney, but in the entire 15 minutes of his speech he did not even bother to set out what he thought those imminent threats to the economy were. To his credit, the member for Cowper at least attempted to identify one threat that he believed existed in relation to the National Broadband Network. There is no doubt in my mind that, like all of those Liberal state members of parliament in my electorate at a recent Building the Education Revolution opening, when it comes to the opening of the NBN in his electorate I am certain the member for Cowper will be there for happy snaps just to make sure that he cashes in on the rollout of the NBN in his electorate. When I try to ascertain what the coalition believes these imminent threats are it seems that the entire substance of the member for North Sydney's contribution related to the fracas over the royalties issue in Western Australia. The Assistant Treasurer went through in great detail the repeated commitments that had been given by Premier Barnett. On eight occasions within eight months, and most recently within eight weeks of the printing of the budget, he ruled out an increase in the rate of royalties. Regarding this discussion about whether or not the Commonwealth Treasurer knew about the plans of Premier Barnett, let us have a look at the public record. I reaffirm the points that the Assistant Treasurer made by simply pointing out that every single one of those public commitments that the Premier of Western Australian made indicated that he would not be supporting an increase in the rate of royalties. Let us have a look at some of the genuinely imminent threats to the Australian economy, and let us have a look at the way in which this Treasurer and this government are responding and dealing with those threats. We could talk about those threats that occurred during the global financial crisis or we could talk about the threats that occurred as a result of the natural disasters that we faced. You would have thought that these were the sorts of imminent threats by which the performance of this Treasurer and this government would be judged. They were the imminent threats that real Australians faced. They were the things that impacted on the lives of everyday Australians across this country. When it came to the global financial crisis we must proudly stand behind the record of what this government delivered. It was a government and a treasurer that acted swiftly and with the degree of decisiveness that was required to ensure that this economy avoided recession, unlike any other advanced economy in the world. Not only did we avoid recession, but we have delivered over 700,000 new jobs since we came to power, at a time when millions of jobs had been shed right across other advanced economies in this world. Indeed, we managed to create jobs and not see a loss of jobs. In terms of the fiscal record of this government, we also see a clear pathway to return the budget to surplus. I would have thought that that was a threat that faces the economy—the threat of rising interest rates in the event that we do not contain government spending and we do not get the budgetary position of the Commonwealth back into order. But that is the very essence of this budget. It is about delivering a surplus by 2012-13. It is about tackling some of those important challenges, such as skills and labour shortages, this country is facing. And this is not a new challenge, albeit the interruption of the global financial crisis meant that some of those threats abated for a short time. But the Reserve Bank gave the former Howard government 20 warnings in relation to capacity constraints and skills and labour shortages and the imminent threat that they posed to the economy through higher interest rates and, consequently, more mortgage stress for people out there in communities such as the one I represent. If we look at those imminent threats we can see that when the coalition were in government they failed abysmally to address those imminent threats. But they are at the very heart of the budget that the Treasurer handed down this year. It is about delivering opportunities to ensure that we are able to get more people into work. We already have a participation rate at record levels in this country, but we want to get more people into work. We want to use this once-in-a-generation opportunity of mining boom mark 2. We want to get the benefits out of it, some of which were squandered under mining boom mark 1. We want to get those benefits for the people who have been stuck in unemployment. We want to ensure that we provide them with the assistance and the incentives to get them into the workforce to play a part in the national challenge of meeting the many challenges that flow from the mining boom. During the global financial crisis there was often a lot of talk about allegations of waste. I heard the member for North Sydney talk about the allegations of waste. When it comes to the member for North Sydney, he at least did come into this place and vote against that package. I note that the member for Cowper was offered up as a speaker today. I thought that was interesting. I feel a great degree of sympathy for him. I know that there has been a lot of talk about the leak that the matter of five individuals missing the vote was all about undermining Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth. Indeed, if the truth be known, it was a very evil plan to undermine the position of the member for Cowper. What is the member for Cowper's position again? I am not sure that we know what his position is. The member for Cowper was here on occasions when the global financial crisis was about to strike and the stimulus package was being voted on. I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition, for all of his bleating about the stimulus package, did not even turn up to vote on the stimulus package. I will quote from an article in the Daily Telegraph on 8 March 2009 titled 'Tony Abbott Slept through the Key Vote'. Mr Tony Smith interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 The member for Casey. Mr BRADBURY HVW I do want to quote from that article, because it sets out in great detail the failure of the member for Warringah. It said that Mr Abbott told the Sunday Telegraph that the group had consumed a couple of bottles of wine, but he denied that he had fallen asleep. Mr Tony Smith 00APG You said it was the Daily Telegraph. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 The member for Casey will remain silent. Mr BRADBURY HVW The article said that he had told the whip the reason he was not there to vote on the stimulus package was that he fell asleep through it. I have often suggested that those on the other side slept through the global financial crisis, because they want to deny its existence. But when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition he may well have slept through it, because he certainly slept through the vote on the stimulus package. It is hardly the record of someone who is fit to govern. While we are looking at the imminent challenges, I thought it was also worth having a look at some of the longer-term challenges. I note that the member for Flinders is with us this afternoon in the chamber. The member for Flinders has really let the cat out of the bag when it comes to the opposition's approach to tackling climate change. Mr Tony Smith interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 The honourable member for Casey will remain silent for the rest of this contribution. Mr BRADBURY HVW When it comes to the opposition's approach to tackling climate change, perhaps they have not talked about climate change today because they do not see it as being an imminent threat. Maybe they see it as being a medium-term or a longer-term threat. In this debate there has been a failure to address some of those longer-term challenges. But the member for Flinders let the cat out of the bag when he was interviewed on 7.30 just a couple of days ago. He was asked whether or not the so-called direct action plan—this is subsidies for polluters—would provide long-term certainty for the investment community. The best he could come up with was to confirm that the policy does not even look beyond the next 10 years. It is a policy that is directed towards a target of 2020. But if you are out there in the investment community and you want to make some of those hard investment decisions about whether to invest in the new technologies of the future—whether to make those 30- to 50-year investments across the lifecycle of an asset—if you want some certainly don't go to the coalition because, by his very admission, the member for Flinders has indicated that his policy does not even look beyond the next 10 years. So, when it comes to imminent threats, they have failed to address them. We saw the opposition leader's attempt at a budget in reply. Mr Hunt interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 The member for Flinders will remain silent. Mr BRADBURY HVW If this is about trying to force an election to give people an opportunity to determine whether or not this government should continue to govern, then I will simply say that the Leader of the Opposition should have done a lot better than he did in presenting one of the poorest attempts at a budget in reply speech. It is no wonder he was frightened off from trying to attempt one— (Time expired) 16:29 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey In the very short period of time left in this matter of public importance, following that contribution that amazingly was worse than the Assistant Treasurer's, let me say it has been another bad day for the Treasurer. He had a bad question time, but he has had a bad MPI from those opposite. You would not have thought that the Treasurer would have a bad MPI from those opposite. But let the record of the House show that the Assistant Treasurer declared Wayne Swan, the Treasurer, to be a great Treasurer. This is a bad sign for the Treasurer. He used to say Kevin Rudd was a great Prime Minister, but only in the days and weeks before he completely ratted on him. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 4874 ADJOURNMENT Gillard Government 4874 16:30 Mr BRIGGS IYU Mayo I might just pick up from where that great blues man, the member for Casey, was going in that respect. The Assistant Treasurer, who did dub in that contribution in the MPI— Dr Mike Kelly HRI Which blues do you follow? Mr BRIGGS IYU Carlton Blues, Parliamentary Secretary—the mighty Carlton Blues, that is. The Assistant Treasurer, who did dub this Treasurer 'the greatest Treasurer' in his speech a short time before, is the weakest person in this parliament. This is a person who operates only ever behind closed doors, in a faceless manner with a sharp knife. This is the Assistant Treasurer who told the former Prime Minister before the election that he had his full support only to knife him—so much so they had to replace all the carpets in the ministerial wing, as reported in the Daily Telegraph this week. This Assistant Treasurer is the most weak, heartless man. He can never do it to someone's face. He comes in here and backs up his Treasurer, but he runs around every single boardroom in this country and tells them that he wants his job. He wants his job and then he wants the Prime Minister's job. The Assistant Treasurer has all ambition and no ability. He gave an appalling MPI speech in support of his Treasurer, and we all know why. We hear this from all the corporates in this country who say to us that the Assistant Treasurer rolls up to their boardrooms and says, 'Swanny's not up to it; I'm going to be there shortly.' There are some reasons for the Assistant Treasurer to say those sorts of things, because this Treasurer is clearly incompetent. We saw that this week in question time. He is a man who has in the past suffered terrible accusations being made about him on issues in which he has been involved, including I note the shadow minister for innovation, industry and science earlier in the week referring to a bagman. That refers to allegations that there was money passed in an election campaign. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 Order! I warn the honourable member for Mayo that standing order 90 points out that all imputations of improper motives to a member and personal reflections on other members shall be considered highly disorderly. He is skating very close to breaching that standing order. I would commend its provisions to him. Mr BRIGGS IYU I take the Deputy Speaker's advice, but I am referring to articles that were in the Courier Mail. But it is the performance of this Treasurer which this parliament should find completely abhorrent. We know that the Treasurer has made mistake after mistake, such as spending too much money. The budget this year quite clearly shows that this is a government that has lost control of our finances—deficit budget after deficit budget, debt building up to over $100 billion for the first time in our history, another $50 billion deficit and the claim that we will only return to surplus in 2012-13. If you look at the budget papers, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will see that is purely because this government is taxing more. This government is not making the hard and necessary decisions to cut spending. It is taxing more and the revenue is up. There is not any chance that it will get close to returning to a surplus. We do not believe the government ever will because this Treasurer oversees waste and deficit spending. Let us look at some of the mistakes this Treasurer has made. The first was stating that the banks need not pass on cuts in official interest rates. The Treasurer told a press conference on 8 January 2008: … it is entirely their right as a commercial organisation to take this decision in their commercial interests … Second, he made a comment to Laurie Oakes on 7 September 2008 that the pension was too low for him to live off, yet he did nothing about it. Thirdly, he told the ABC in 2008 that people affected by government policy should be sent to Centrelink. He said 'these people should investigate whatever opportunities they have through Centrelink'. Fourthly, when asked about the forecast rate of inflation on the release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, he undertook to cite a figure, saying, 'Who has got my chart?' That comes off the back of a very direct question we asked him in question time this week about whether he could refer to a figure in the budget and we were told by the Treasurer that it was not his job to play word games. He said that the member could go and find it in the budget papers. It is a responsibility in question time in this place, when you are responsible for an area of government, to answer questions relating to that area of government. You constantly try to get that focused on in question time. Very clearly, the job of the Treasurer is to answer specific questions about his budget. This Treasurer is incompetent and not up to it. But he is a whole lot better than the Assistant Treasurer. Middle East 4875 16:35 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle While the death of Osama Bin Laden brought an understandable analysis of its effect on Islamic extremism, there continues to be inadequate recognition of the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, now in its 63rd year, remains both a powerful rallying cause for such extremist groups and a source of general grievance for Muslims worldwide. In recent years, the Pentagon and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have noted that the absence of Middle East peace is having a negative effect on US national security interests in the region. The failure to resolve the long-running conflict also impacts on Australia's national security, from its relevance to our military involvement in Afghanistan to the reality of its impact on our near neighbour Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation. I have recently returned from a study tour of Palestine together with my parliamentary colleagues, the members for Calwell, Farrer and Shortland. This was the first time I had been back in the region since I worked for the UN refugee agency UNRWA in Gaza from 2002 to 2004. I stand here tonight as someone who has lived and worked in the region and seen both sides of the conflict. I am not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine but pro-reconciliation, pro-peace and pro-justice. It is the policy of Australia's major political parties and it is Australian government policy to support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This necessarily means independent states of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security. There must be a win-win outcome for the two sides or there will be no resolution of the conflict. There must be a commitment to non-violence on the part of both sides and all forms of violence against civilians are to be condemned in the strongest terms. However, too often the conflict is spoken of as if it is only the Palestinians who need to change their behaviour. The frequent rocket fire from Gaza into Israel by militant groups is a clear violation of international law. But so too is the disproportionate use of force by Israel against civilians that was evident in the war on Gaza. Also contrary to international law is the blockade on Gaza, which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population, which has crippled the economy and left thousands of young people without any prospect of work or of leading lives of dignity and which has left 80 per cent of the Gaza population dependent on aid. So too is the program of establishing Israeli cities, roads and the wall in the occupied territory. In East Jerusalem and the West Bank, almost every aspect of Palestinian life and the economy is controlled by checkpoints, closures, settlements and their buffer zones, and by Israeli-exclusive roads, the wall, house demolitions and an opaque administrative system of permits—required for building, residency, driving, work, access to agricultural land et cetera—that severely restricts freedom of movement, access to health and education services and the capacity of Christians and Muslims to access holy places. It is this context of occupation that is often missing in discussions about the conflict, which usually centre around the issue of security alone. Security for both Israelis and Palestinians is a legitimate issue, but it should be understood that there is no parity of power in this equation. Israel is one of the largest military powers in the world and the only nuclear power in the Middle East. It has militarily occupied Palestine for 44 years. Last week US President Barack Obama called for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. He noted: The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has rejected the 1967 borders as 'indefensible'. Yet the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are an ongoing poke in the eye to the peace process and to a two-state solution because these so-called 'facts on the ground' form physical obstacles that may foreclose the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. Despite the challenges presented by the occupation, the Palestinian authority has been advancing peaceful resolution of the conflict, and the relative peace experienced by Israeli citizens in recent years is a direct result of these efforts. This is more than the peace that existed at the time of the Northern Ireland agreement brokered by George Mitchell. And, instead of being seen as a threat, the unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas should be regarded as a positive step towards the possibility of peace. Earlier this month Haaretz, Israel's oldest daily newspaper, reported that the Israeli foreign ministry had advised the government to see the reconciliation as a strategic opportunity and to refrain from attacking it. The Haaretz editorial said: It would be correct for Israel to recognize the Palestinian unity government in order to conduct a dialogue and neighborly relations with the Palestinian state in the future. Israelis and Palestinians alike are entitled to live in peace with dignity and freedom, and to choose their own governments. It is not sustainable to require Palestinians to be stateless persons under the control of another country forever. On our visit we saw Palestinians drawing renewed hope from the Arab spring unfolding in the region around them. Australia, as a respected middle power country, is in a position to play a constructive role to help ensure a balanced outcome for both sides and 'to act as a living bridge between despair and hope'. (Time expired) Regional Health Services 4877 16:40 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Heidi Maree Clarke-Lewis was a young woman with her whole life ahead of her when she entered Wagga Wagga Base Hospital on the evening of Thursday, 30 April 2009. Only six months earlier, on 18 October 2008, Heidi had married the love of her life, Steve Lewis. Heidi and Steve were happily married and were starting to plan a family. Heidi, who hailed from Narrandera, had a successful career as the media officer for Wagga Wagga City Council and a very happy and bright future ahead of her. Heidi presented in the emergency department with severe abdominal pain that Thursday night and was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy and booked for laparoscopic surgery, a fairly routine procedure. Tragically, Heidi died on the operating table that same night. After nearly two long years, in April this year the coronial inquest over Heidi's death was held. Three official recommendations were made by the Deputy State Coroner, Hugh Dillon: (1) that the New South Wales Minister for Health undertake a study of the costs and benefits of digitally recording surgery, (2) that the Murrumbidgee Local Health Network consider emergency checklists and (3) that the Murrumbidgee Local Health Network review its on-call procedures. Mr Dillon's closing remarks were particularly poignant. He told Heidi Clarke-Lewis's family that her life had not been a waste and that her death added weight to the demand for more regional health funding. I agree 100 per cent with Mr Dillon's remarks and so too does Heidi's grieving family. As Heidi's sister Mrs Kathy Langley read in her statement to the inquest: We may have one of the best health systems in the world, but we are still nowhere near good enough while lives are being lost so carelessly throughout the hospital system. Surely the expectation to receive decent professional medical treatment in this country is a right and not a privilege. Mrs Langley is correct. Medical treatment in Australia is a right, not a privilege. Why then is there such a line drawn between city dwellers and regional Australians? You should not have to live in metropolitan areas to receive top level health care and have top level health facilities. However, a line has been drawn—a line which sees that for every Medicare dollar spent on a city dweller, only 51c is spent on their regional compatriots. This is unacceptable. Every Australian deserves to have the same amount spent. Wagga Wagga Base Hospital services upwards of a quarter of a million people right across the Riverina and South West Slopes. For many this is their lifeline in a crisis. In the country you do not have a choice. You have to use the facilities available. As Mrs Langley quite rightly told the inquest, a new hospital would encourage more qualified staff. Again today I acknowledge the former and present New South Wales governments and the federal government for the contributions they have made towards a new, long overdue Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. But more funding is needed to ensure the complete rebuild of the current dilapidated hospital. This is a project the people of the Riverina have waited for, and waited and waited. They are tired of waiting and they are tired of inadequate facilities. I have written to the New South Wales health minister and the federal health minister stating the full details of Heidi's case. Heidi was a real person, not a statistic, not merely a number on a medical list kept by health bureaucrats. She was a warm, caring, healthy, happy person who always thought of others first, who had everything to live for. Her death at age 29 was tragically unfortunate and totally unnecessary. I trust that by highlighting the issues the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital faces, and the concerns of Mrs Clarke-Lewis's family and indeed those of the Deputy State Coroner, Wagga Wagga will receive facilities at least equal to those of most other communities in Australia. The constituents of Riverina deserve nothing less. We must ensure we learn from the loss of the young, beautiful and loving Heidi so that her death was not in vain. Petrie Schools Summit 4878 16:44 Mrs D'ATH HVN Petrie Today I rise to speak about the Petrie Schools Summit for 2011. This is a summit that I run each year and which brings together students, principals and teachers from schools across the electorate of Petrie. The Schools Summit is a full-day workshop on eight important topics that the schools have contributed to. We work through the topics and at the end of the day the ideas are put together in a submission that will be presented to the Prime Minister, the federal Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, the state Premier and our local mayor so that all three levels of government are aware that our local young people and educators have a voice. This year's topics were: bullying, the proposed year 7 transition to high school, the value of arts and education, community spaces for young people, healthy Australia in the future, media and social wellbeing, role models and iPads in schools. I would like to thank Deception Bay State High School for hosting the summit this year. Every year a different school in the electorate hosts the summit. Not only did Deception Bay State High School host the event this year; its hospitality students catered the event and were assessed on their preparation and service of the food, which was absolutely exquisite. They did an amazing job. We had 114 participants this year: 36 primary school students, 11 middle school students, 22 secondary school students, 27 educators and 18 chairpersons overseeing the 13 working groups. Twenty-four schools participated in the event: Aspley East State School, Aspley State High School, Bounty Boulevard State School, Bracken Ridge State High School, Bracken Ridge State School, Clontarf Beach State High School, Clontarf Beach State School, Dakabin State High School, Deception Bay Flexible Learning Centre, Deception Bay North State School, Deception Bay State High School, Deception Bay Community Youth Programs, Deception Bay State School, Grace Lutheran College, Grace Lutheran Primary School, Hercules Road State School, Moreton Downs State School, Mueller College, North Lake State College, Scarborough State School, Southern Cross Catholic College, St John Fisher College, St Joseph's Catholic Primary School and St Paul's School. We had convenors from across the electorate including representatives from local Indigenous groups, businesses, our Police Citizens Youth Club, the Queensland Police Service Child Protection and Investigation Unit, Regional Development Australia Moreton Bay, Brisbane Airport Corporation, School Community Relations, Redcliffe Environmental Forum and the owner of McDonald's Bracken Ridge, as well as a youth worker from Deception Bay Community Youth Programs. We had the president of Lions Recycle for Sight Australia, the director of MW Training, staff from Moreton Bay Regional Council, staff from Chameleon Housing, the manager of BallyCara Retirement Village, staff from Dolphins Health Precinct and radio commentators from 99.7 FM community radio. These people turned out to oversee and chair these working groups all day long. They gave up their time for free to work with these kids to get their ideas because they understand the importance of giving young people a voice and how important it is that all levels of government listen to that voice. That is what this summit is all about. I look forward to putting this year's submissions together and presenting them to the various levels of government. I look forward to coming back into this chamber to report on the ideas that have come out of this year's Schools Summit. This is a great opportunity for our young people—from private schools and public schools, primary schools and secondary schools—to come together, sit around a table and share ideas and then go away having built new friendships and relationships. The students quite often keep in contact with each other after the event to keep sharing ideas. This is how you bring communities together. Once again, I congratulate Deception Bay State High School for being the host and showcasing their school at the Petrie Schools Summit for 2011. Future Fund 4879 16:49 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Mr Speaker, you and others in this place may have seen the front page of the Age this morning, with its lead story headlined 'Australia investing in nuclear arms'. Australia's $74 billion Future Fund has been found to be investing our tax dollars in companies that manufacture nuclear weapons components. Utterly shamefully, this includes companies based in countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Fifteen companies are receiving $135.4 million from us to build medium-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear-armed submarines, and to test launch systems of nuclear missiles in India. This is absolutely shocking in the face of the valuable and internationally recognised work on nuclear disarmament that our government has progressed in recent years. Whilst the government continues to state its vision for a future free of nuclear weapons, the Future Fund is enabling, aiding and abetting those who make weapons of mass destruction—weapons that kill millions of people. This investment must cease immediately. Today in Senate estimates, my colleague and the Greens spokesperson for nuclear issues, Senator Scott Ludlam, after questioning the Chief Investment Officer of the Future Fund, ascertained that the fund had not sought legal advice before defending its investments in nuclear weapons manufacturers. It was also revealed that the fund had been of the position that the treaties Australia had signed on to did not preclude the fund's investment in nuclear weapons manufacturing companies. Let me be absolutely clear: the treaties that Australia has signed on to are disarmament treaties, and these treaties disallow the fund's investment decisions. To take but one example, under article 3(c) of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty of 1985, Australia has undertaken: (c) not to take any action to assist or encourage the manufacture or acquisition of any nuclear explosive device by any State. Let me also be absolutely clear that the investment decisions of the fund are questionable at best, and in my opinion overtly disallowed in the context of Commonwealth law. Section 13 of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act 1986 explicitly states that: A person who does any act or thing to facilitate the manufacture, production, acquisition or testing by any person (including a foreign country) of a nuclear explosive device (whether in or outside Australia) is guilty of an offence … Yet, even today, it was revealed in Senate estimates that the fund has, to date, presumed its actions were legitimate, despite its own stated policy not to finance companies involved in activities that are unlawful in Australia. I strongly suggest that this matter is not simply a technical issue of whether or not this fund is breaching Australia's legal obligations. First and foremost, the fund should not be in the business of financing nuclear weapons as a matter of moral imperative and should cease all such investments immediately. That a decision was taken in the first place to assist the Indian nuclear program—India not being a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty—is, in my eyes, a serious error of judgment on both legal and moral grounds. Larsen & Toubro, a company that the fund invests in, tests India's nuclear missiles and builds India's nuclear armed submarines. Under no circumstances should Australian tax revenue be used for such a scandalous purpose. It is certainly not too late for the fund to alter its investments, and I commend its representatives for undertaking today to seek the necessary legal advice on Australia's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and other treaties that it is signatory to. With some urgency, but also goodwill, this matter can be rectified quickly and the fund can continue its important role in Australia's economy without these damaging investments. As was pointed out in estimates today, the Norwegian pension fund and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund have both deemed it unethical to finance nuclear weapons companies and have both ceased investing in nuclear weapons manufacturing companies. Again, I commend the representatives of the fund for resolving to explore a similar path. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate tools of destruction. Their use has enormous and catastrophic humanitarian consequences. They cause unimaginable suffering across communities and generations. The Future Fund has recently done the right thing on ceasing investment in cluster bombs, and it now has the opportunity to do the same on nuclear weapons. I welcome its commitment today to consider its position, and I hope that sanity prevails such that Australia's tax revenue is no longer used to finance the proliferation of nuclear weapons. (Time expired) Building the Education Revolution Program 4880 16:54 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin Today I would like to inform the House of the status of the some of the many Building the Education Revolution projects in my electorate of Deakin. On many previous occasions in this place I have spoken of the great results that have been achieved in our local schools through funding under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. Since 3 March this year, when I last spoke on this subject, I have had the pleasure of attending another five openings of new school buildings in Deakin. On 9 March it was at Tintern Girls Grammar School in Ringwood East. On 15 March it was at Burwood Heights Primary school. On 16 March it was St Thomas' Catholic Primary School in Blackburn, and on 18 March it was at both Marlborough Primary School in Heathmont and Eastwood Primary School in Ringwood East. The projects have made an enormous difference to the schools, and have been enthusiastically received by students, parents and teachers. There are many more projects finished or close to finishing, and the next few months will be a very exciting time for many of the local schools in Deakin as they also get to use their new facilities. The opposition squeal about BER rip-offs, but these are real projects that provided real local jobs when they were needed most and have given local schools a new and modern outlook. Having touched on the issue of BER rip-offs, I think I should comment that I have now heard of three instances of BER rip-offs in my own local area. Schools that have been promised funding are now hearing that the money has been cut. That is right—cut. Members may well ask, 'Who has cut the money?' Ted Baillieu and the Liberal Party of Victoria have cut the money. Some on the other side are laughing at this. Do you think this is a laughing matter for schools? I have news: we will keep going with this. Schools such as Antonio Park Primary School, which had initial approved funding for $2,500,000 to build a new performing arts centre for the amount of $2 million and to demolish and rebuild the asbestos ridden portable building that now houses the after-school-hours centre, now hear that $500,000 is to be taken away from their school. Heathmont East Primary School was allocated $2.725 million to build a new multipurpose building to house badly needed new classrooms at this fast-growing school. Yet they are now told that $225,000 has simply been taken away and the refurbishment of existing buildings that was going to be undertaken has been scrapped. Just outside of my electorate, Warranwood Primary School believed they were allocated $2.7 million to construct a new building and refurbish parts of the school but then, once the main building was nearing completion, they found that the amount they were promised has been dropped and they are at least $200,000 worse off. I have long been aware that there could be adjustments in allocations to schools in Victoria under the BER program, but in each case consultation and agreement is required. As I understand it, there has been no genuine consultation, if any, and no agreement has been reached. Indeed, two of these schools, Antonio Park and Warranwood Primary—if we go back through the history of them both—were initially allocated $3 million under the BER. One of the things that was done in Victoria at the time was that some schools that did not need quite as much helped out others that needed a bit more and both of these schools voluntarily gave up $500,000 of funding each to put into the eastern region pool so that other schools could benefit from it. Indeed, Heathmont East Primary School, another school I mentioned, is a school that benefited from this. They received an extra $225,000 on top of their $2.5 million, taking it to $2.725 million. But that has gone as well. I fear that these examples may be only the tip of the iceberg and that the state Liberal government is ripping off many more schools in other areas and regions as well. It is now time for the Liberal Party and Mr Baillieu to come clean with school councils, parents, teachers and students of these schools and tell them what they have done with the money allocated to their schools under the BER program. This is, of course, federal money. This is money that schools knew they had. They had paperwork that said what they were going to receive. Yet when they come to the end of their build and they say, 'We need to do some more works around the schools and we know we have some money left over,' they will then all of a sudden be told, 'No, you don't.' I do not accept that the Liberal state government of Victoria can just walk in and knock off federal funds allocated to these schools and neither should anyone in the school communities involved. Question agreed to. House adjourned at 16:59 NOTICES 4882 NOTICES

Thursday, 26 May 2011

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 9:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 4883 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Petition: Eaton Post Office 4883 09:31 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I rise to present a petition for a post office in Eaton. The locality is in the shire of Dardanup. It is a rapidly growing community in my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia, with a population of over 10,000 people. It is expected to grow to 15,000 people by the end of the decade. Eaton is also a service centre for the surrounding areas of Burekup, Roelands and Brunswick Junction. At the heart of the Eaton regional community is the Eaton Fair Shopping Centre. Surrounding this are three schools, with two, Glen Huon Primary School and Eaton Community College, in the immediate vicinity. The heart of Eaton also contains the Eaton recreation centre, the library, a day-care centre, shire offices and a medical centre. It is a central hub. Within 500 metres of the shopping centre there are two retirement villages, including an aged-care facility that will, with soon-to-be-completed expansions, house over 500 residents. Many of these residents and others of retirement age living elsewhere in Eaton no longer drive but use Gophers and walkers to get to the shopping centre. They do not want to take those Gophers and walkers two kilometres to the next post office. Currently residents have access to a postbox in which they can post their letters at Eaton. They can buy stamps from the great local newsagency. However, they cannot pay their bills, their fines or licence fees. The people of Eaton and surrounds deserve a real and centrally located post office. This is commonly recognised—so much so that private citizens have flocked to sign this petition. I would like to thank Val Melville, the principal petitioner, for her efforts with this petition. A resident of Bethany Fields village, a retirement centre not fair from Eaton Fair, Val is surrounded by those who are demanding this service. She has worked tirelessly to put this together. A total of over 4,637 people have signed this petition asking for the government to take action on their behalf. Nearly half of the local population who have gone out of their way to make an effort to express their views. I urge the government not to ignore them. I again thank Val Melville for all of the work that she has done. The presence of a post office in the Eaton Fair Shopping Centre for these residents is needed, particularly for those who are not in a position to drive or walk the two kilometres to the nearest other post office. The covering paper of this petition reads: 'The undersigned citizens of the south-west of Western Australia draw to the attention of the House the lack of a fully licensed post office in Eaton Fair Shopping Centre, which is being upgraded to the Eaton Town Centre.' I ask that the government not ignore this. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This Petition of the undersigned citizens of the South West of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House the lack of a fully licensed Post Office in Eaton Fair Shopping Centre which is being upgraded to Eaton Town Centre. For the Attention of the House: A fully licensed local Post Office Service is a vital and urgent necessity for the community of Eaton and surrounding areas. Eaton is a rapidly growing community currently serviced by a Post Box and facilities to purchase stamps. Within 500 metres there are two retirement villages which at capacity will house over 500 residents, some of whom like some other Eaton seniors cannot drive cars and rely on gophers and walkers to access the shopping centre. They are more likely to use mail! A close to hand licensed Post Office is desperately needed for mail and as a facility to pay bills and licenses. Eaton and its nearby communities use the shopping centre as a one stop shop for their needs seven days a week. The town centre also includes three schools including a senior college, a day care, recreation centre, library and medical centre. This petition of citizens of Eaton in the Shire of Dardanup, Western Australia asks the House to request the Government, which is denying the petitioners urgently needed local official post office services, to take action in placing a Post Office in Eaton Fair Town Centre. from 4,637 citizens Petition received. Noble Park Primary School 4884 09:34 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs On Saturday, 7 May I attended the centenary celebrations of Noble Park Primary School. Starting life with 26 students in 1911, it grew to 100 students by 1917 and now has 260 students. The centenary celebrations were a great opportunity to reflect on the past and to catch up with old friends. I had the pleasure of meeting three generations of Noble Park students at the centenary, including Lloyd Lancaster and Keith Wilson, who attended Noble Park Primary School in the 1930s. At the celebrations, Lloyd approached Keith, saying, 'You look to be the same vintage as me.' After exchanging names, they started a journey of remembrance, including many stories resulting in much laughter. Keith's daughter Sharon said: 'It was a joy and privilege to see these two gentlemen joined after all these years exchanging stories of behind the shelter shed. They are old Noble Park boys with spirits strong for our great city. Why would you live anywhere else?' This is an appropriate occasion also to remember the first teacher at Noble Park Primary School, Miss Olga Ernst. Miss Ernst was a wonderful teacher and a great Australian. She wrote her first collection of Australian fairytales, called Fairy Tales from the Land of the Wattle, when she was just 16. This is a special book because it was one of the first to take European fairy stories and put them in an Australian context. Our community is now very different from that experienced by Olga Ernst in 1911, and not only because Noble Park was then a small rural settlement rather than a suburb within a city of over four million people. There was no electric light then. No-one in the Noble Park community would have had a motor vehicle, and many of the students would have come to school by horse. But we are culturally richer now than we have ever been. This richness is reflected at Noble Park Primary School, where most students come from a non-English-speaking background, with up to 35 languages being spoken. Just as Miss Ernst made European fairy stories into Australian stories, students at Noble Park Primary School will make their cultural traditions part of the Australian story. The stories that start at Noble Park primary are the stories of Australia's future. I am sure Miss Ernst would be proud of what her little school, which started life in a rented hall in 1911, has become. I wish to congratulate David Rothstadt, the principal at Noble Park primary, and all the staff, parents, friends and students for the enjoyable and well-organised centenary celebrations, for contributing to the ongoing success of this excellent school and for the valuable contribution that they make to our community. Moncrieff Electorate: Workplace Relations 4885 09:36 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I rise to speak about ongoing industrial action, namely strikes, that is taking place at the Gold Coast University Hospital building site. This hospital is an important piece of infrastructure for the people of the Gold Coast. For too long, successive state Labor governments have ignored the very real and growing demand for health services in our city. This project has already been delayed by a number of years as a result of mismanagement by the state Labor government. Now, to rub salt into the wound for the people of the Gold Coast, for my constituents in Moncrieff, we have a situation where the trade union movement continues to flex its muscles in a way that could only be described as demonstrating that they are completely out of control. We have had in excess of 16 days of disputes at the Gold Coast site. We now have a strike that is illegal going into its second week. Further compounding the problem is that, earlier this week, apparently somewhere in the vicinity of several hundred trade unionists from the building site made a convoy into Brisbane and blocked all four lanes of the M1 between the Gold Coast and Brisbane. It is fair enough for trade unionists to argue their case and to seek to do so through strike action, but it is not fair when that strike action adds to the costs for taxpayers. It is not fair when that strike action further delays a project that has already been delayed by a couple of years. It certainly is not fair when they continue to hold strike action even though they have been ordered back to work by Fair Work Australia. It is absolutely not fair to those people from my electorate and its surrounds who are simply going about their business travelling to Brisbane for work on a route that is already heavily congested—again, because the state Labor government has not invested in the M1—for there to be a rolling blockade, effectively, of the M1 with tens of thousands of people delayed for in excess of an hour or two on their commute to work. The trade union movement are engaging in pure self-indulgence when it comes to their strike action on the Gold Coast University Hospital site. It is taxpayers who end up paying the price for this. This project continues to become more expensive as these strikes continue. Most concerningly, in what is an already depressed construction market on the Gold Coast, this sends a very clear message, and that is that anyone looking to develop on the Gold Coast, anyone looking to do any construction activity, needs to be very wary of the trade union movement adding to their costs substantially, because they will take strike action whether it is legal or not. I say, on behalf of the community, it is time they got back to work and dealt with it in the way in which the law intends for it to be dealt with. Budget 4886 09:39 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I would like to talk about some great news from the federal budget—specifically from the health infrastructure fund regional priority round—for the Huon Valley community and particularly for the residents of Cygnet in my electorate. We were allocated $1.2 million for a new purpose-built Cygnet medical centre. I would like to congratulate the Huon Valley Council on its submission. This purpose-built medical centre has been a long time coming. It has taken a couple of years of lobbying, by the council and by me, so I was really thrilled to be able to announce that this purpose-built facility will be coming to Cygnet. The project is an investment in terms of medical facilities in the local community, it will attract health professionals to the area and it will also be a boost to the local economy as the stimulus from the Building the Education Revolution program winds up in that local community. We are also starting work soon on the new Huon trade training centre, which will also be in the Huon Valley. The residents of Cygnet should be very pleased to be getting this facility. I was taken to have a look at the current medical centre a couple of years ago. It is an old building made of weatherboard and vertical board. There is an older GP there who wants to retire, so it is really good that they are going to have this new purpose-built medical facility. It is building on other investments that the government has made. Since 2007 we have invested quite heavily in the Huon Valley, with the support of the council. I was able to open the Esperance Multipurpose Health Centre refurbishments just a few weeks ago. I also opened the Huon Doctors Surgery refurbishments, funded by the federal government, and the Geeveston and Dover medical centre refurbishments, also funded by the federal government. The council has been working very hard investing in local health services, with the support of the federal government, in delivering wonderful services to the local community there. The centre will include five consulting rooms, a treatment room, space to accommodate case conferencing and teaching sessions and access for emergency vehicles. It will also provide training facilities for the training of registrars and medical students. It will be a wonderful investment in that local community. We have been lobbying for a long time for this, and I want to give my thanks to Minister Nicola Roxon for her ongoing support for health care in that area and for the funding that came through the priority round of the health infrastructure fund. Southern Tasmania and my electorate were also able to benefit from the multimillion dollar upgrade of the Royal Hobart Hospital that was also funded. All of Tasmania, but southern Tasmania in particular, including a lot of my local residents, will have access to the rebuilt Royal Hobart Hospital after its $565 million upgrade. Macular Degeneration 4886 09:43 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan This week marks the 10th anniversary of Macular Degeneration Awareness Week, and I rise today to support this initiative. How precious is our sight? Seeing the beauty of the world around us is something many of us would take for granted. But to lose the ability to see would be devastating. Sight is a gift we should not overlook. Macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in Australia, affecting central vision. It is age related, with one in seven people over the age of 50 affected by the disease. The incidence of macular degeneration increases with age. With my electorate of Ryan being home to over 3,000 residents in aged care, it is an issue that is of great importance to me and to those I represent. It is estimated that there are 17,700 new cases of macular degeneration every year in Australia, and this costs the economy $2.6 billion a year. There is currently no cure for the disease, but early detection can slow the process and offers the best chance of retaining one's sight. With this in mind, the Macular Degeneration Foundation aims to raise awareness of the disease and encourages all Australians, particularly our older Australians, to regularly have their eyes checked—including their macula. The macula is at the very centre of the retina in your eye and is responsible for fine detail and your central vision. You read with your macula, distinguish faces, drive your car—anything that requires detailed vision. It is important to take care of your macula. You cannot change your genes or your age but living a healthy lifestyle, not smoking and eating well can help prevent the onset of the disease. To truly appreciate the value of your macular health, I encourage everyone to visit the Macular Degeneration Foundation's website and take the Amsler Grid test. This will tell you if you have the early signs of macular degeneration. The foundation knows that, whilst early detection gives you the best chance of beating macular degeneration, it is imperative that we find a cure. As Australians, we have all seen what has been achieved by the pioneering work of the Fred Hollows Foundation. Finding a cure to make forms of blindness preventable makes an enormous difference to anyone's life. Finding a cure for Australia's leading cause of blindness is challenging, yet, if we are all aware of the issue and work together to find a cure, that can be achieved. With this in mind, the Macular Degeneration Foundation have announced their single biggest commitment to research regarding the disease. They have recently launched the Macular Degeneration Research Grants Program, which will provide $1.5 million to researchers in this area over the next three years. The foundation's aim is for Australians to collectively raise $10 million over the next 10 years so that together we can find a cure for the leading cause of blindness in Australia. I encourage everyone to get behind this cause and remember to check your macula. Chifley-Blair Sister Schools Project 4887 09:46 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley An excellent speech by the member for Ryan—I wholeheartedly endorse those sentiments. Statistically, Australians are the most charitable people in the world and, since the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi, the way Australians as a nation—sometimes as strangers, or as mates—are simply people who genuinely care is not only exemplary but extraordinary. Many months after and following the tragedies in both Japan and New Zealand, Australians are still giving and helping Queenslanders to restore, rebuild and repair their great state. In my own electorate of Chifley, people from every background have pitched in and collectively worked towards raising as much money as they can. But, no matter how much money is raised, there is still much more to be done. I talk with my Queensland parliamentary colleagues about the effects on their electorates and what their constituents are doing to rebuild their lives. I was especially moved by the member for Blair's comments in his discussions with me and in his condolence speech, where he said: The damage to the lives of the people of Blair is as raw as the landscape around the Lockyer Creek, the Brisbane River and the Bremer River. He also said: This was our Hurricane Katrina … The member for Blair told me that the clean-up costs will be more than a billion dollars, but it was the fact that most of the schools in his electorate were wiped out that caught my attention. We talked about doing something different, something practical, for them and we focused on two schools that would benefit from a helping hand. Brassall State School lost three buildings, every computer, every piece of sports equipment, every teaching aid down to every piece of paper. Near Ipswich basketball stadium, which was destroyed and will cost about $800,000 to repair, is Bundamba State School. All of its buildings were flooded and school and sporting equipment destroyed. With the Chifley spirit in mind, we set out on a mission to connect our communities. The Chifley-Blair Sister Schools Project was set up, bringing together members of both the local P&Cs to help raise funds for essential school equipment, in particular sports equipment. On Sunday, 22 May, I hosted a family fun day flood fundraiser for Brassall and Bundamba state schools. The member for Blair attended to talk about his electorate's experience firsthand. His remarks were insightful, personal and emotional and they gave a firsthand perspective of the devastating impact of the floods and the recovery work required. More than 30 members of local P&Cs participated and, through the effort, nearly $4,000 was raised. The children at the event painted a banner for the schools as a goodwill gesture. It said: 'A problem shared is a problem halved.' Hopefully, the Chifley-Blair Sister Schools Project has helped lessen some of the burden of rebuilding while demonstrating the power of community from one electorate to another, from one P&C to another and simply from one friend to another. Remote Area Television Licences 4888 09:49 Mr BRUCE SCOTT YT4 Maranoa I rise today to highlight this Labor government's refusal yet again to listen to the concerns of remote and rural communities across Maranoa and rural Australia. In particular, I refer today to those areas that receive television through the remote licence area conditions. Last week I found out that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, had blocked the proposal by the Remote Area Planning and Development Board, which is based in Longreach, which would help communities in remote television licence areas after the switchover to digital television. The proposal would have seen funding under the Australian government's Satellite Subsidy Scheme pooled and directed towards converting the existing retransmission facilities. The board was merely hoping to replicate a service which has operated successfully for many years. The minister's decision is quite clearly a punch in the guts for people in those communities of rural and remote Australia. For decades, local councils and remote communities have rebroadcast an analog television terrestrial signal. This meant that households, businesses, caravan parks, hotels and motels could receive their television via an antenna. The minister has now decided that the broadcasters will no longer be required to install digital television ground infrastructure for communities with fewer than 500 residents. Remote communities will now be forced to take up the government supported Viewer Access Satellite Television at a cost for connection of between $1,000 and $1,500, which is much more than the government's Satellite Subsidy Scheme cost of $400 in standard areas and $550 in remote areas. We still have no subsidy available in remote communities under the proposal for hospitals, health clinics, motels, hotels, and caravan parks. What will happen in these communities under the proposal is that the signal will only be received on a satellite dish. Imagine going to a community today without a mobile phone signal. That is what it will be like in these communities. If you are an outback tourist going into many of these communities, as part of the great outback odyssey, the only way you will be able to receive television is if there is a satellite dish. Hotels are going to have to convert to the satellite signal with their own money. I have hotels and motels in my electorate saying it is going to cost them up to $15,000 to convert because they are moving from a terrestrial signal to a satellite-only solution, and under the terrestrial signal all they had to do was convert some of the televisions in the rooms. It reminds me of the Labor government under Paul Keating when they shut down the analog mobile service without a suitable replacement. This is yet another example showing that this government does not understand the needs of rural and remote Australia. (Time expired) Canberra Electorate: Small Business 4889 09:52 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I would like to use this opportunity to talk about the recent forum I organised and moderated for Canberrans looking to start a small business. As someone who has gone through the difficult, risky, frustrating but deeply rewarding process of starting a small business, I wanted to use my connections and knowledge to help Canberrans to start out on their own. I wanted to do this for two reasons. First, small business provides a means to diversify the Canberra economy and capitalise on all the wonderful talent we have in this city. Second, small business provides a means for giving people opportunities to enter the workforce or employment that is more fitting to their lifestyle. Here I am talking about young mums who have babies at home who want a more flexible and possibly part-time working environment, and small business provides them with that flexibility. I was particularly interested in encouraging women to start their own small business. I know they often have some great ideas and it is just a case of knowing what to do. To keep the event exclusive and to give people value from this free event, I wanted to keep the numbers relatively small so that people got value through one-on-one contact. I was expecting about 25 people to sign up and actually got double that. All in all, 38 people attended my first business seminar, a number that exceeded my expectations and the actual bookings, to listen to presentations on the processes of how to start a small business and the kinds of things that need to be considered when starting a business. Participants also learnt about various services, networking opportunities and programs run by various groups, both government and nongovernment, that are aimed at assisting small business. They were also provided with information on the many support packages that have been made available to small business under the Gillard government and details of what we are doing for small business in terms of taxation arrangements and assistance to streamline the process of setting up a small business. I would particularly like to highlight the award-winning website business.gov.au, which provides services and information about start-up, taxation, licensing and legislation, as well as transactions on ABN Lookup, compliance and licence applications. It is continually being refined and is constantly responsive to the needs of business. I would also like to highlight Enterprise Connect, which also gives Australian businesses tools, skills and knowledge to improve their competitiveness and productivity in order to maximise their growth potential. Finally, I would like to mention the actions this government is taking on behalf of small business in the budget, particularly the $5,000 tax deduction for motor vehicles and also the reduction of PAYG instalments for small business. My forum was a success and I look forward to holding more in the future. Kooyong Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme 4890 09:55 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I rise to speak on an issue which is of great concern to all people in Kooyong, the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme. When I was at university I was a volunteer tennis coach for the Kids Tennis Foundation and had the privilege of coaching kids with Down syndrome. It opened my eyes. Since then I have met with many inspirational people with disabilities and with their families and carers. They each need and deserve our complete support to ensure they have every opportunity available to them. The NDIS is an important step towards this goal. In Kooyong we are fortunate to have numerous organisations and individuals who are driving the NDIS reform. The Chairman of Yooralla, Bruce Bonyhady, is a constituent and friend, and his energy and acumen have been instrumental in getting us to this point. Wonderful local organisations like Villa Maria in Kew, one of Victoria's largest providers of disability services, the Association for Children with a Disability in Hawthorn, and Belmore Special School in Balwyn are all playing their part. Just last week I again visited Q ArtStudio, which provides an important environment for talented artists with a disability to reach their potential, and just next door VATMI Industries have a huge warehouse providing employment in packaging and boxing to hundreds of people with disabilities. Today more than 750,000 Australians live with a significant disability. To carry on their daily lives they require regular care, support and specialised equipment, services that often come at great cost to families, who are invariably under significant financial pressure. While state and federal governments have already provided significant funding to the disability sector, some $6.2 billion in 2009-10, the system is not working; it is broken. The Productivity Commission's draft report on disability services released in February found that there is a current unmet need for support of $6.3 billion and that too often access to financial support is determined by where someone lives or how they acquired their disability. The draft report also found that people wait years for specialist equipment like wheelchairs, that their funding for service providers was uncertain and inadequate and that there was a distinct lack of access to respite and home modifications, requiring those with disabilities to stay in hospital when it was clearly inappropriate for them to do so. A new national scheme providing insurance cover for all Australians in the event of a disability is a groundbreaking reform. With funding to come from consolidated revenue, it is estimated that around 360,000 people will receive scheme funding. Such a system would be more equitable, more efficient and more effective in delivering critical services to people in need. This reform will require bipartisan support and will need the federal, state and territory governments to overcome the argy-bargy of traditional jurisdictional battles. At the federal level the coalition has made clear we are working with good faith with the government, for the status quo is no option. I join many colleagues on both sides of this House, and thousands of people in Kooyong, in saying that disability support is core government business, one of the most important functions a government can fulfil, and I hope the National Disability Insurance Scheme becomes a reality. Braddon Electorate: Volunteers 4891 09:58 Mr SIDEBOTTOM 849 Braddon One of the great advantages and privileges we have in our job is to see what ordinary everyday Australians do for each other in volunteering. It is the 10th anniversary of the United Nations International Year of Volunteers and I, along with lots of colleagues in this House, have been privileged to present national volunteer awards recently. Over five million volunteers in Australia give around 730 million hours of volunteer time valued at something like $15 billion, though they never measure it like that, and in Tasmania there are over 130,000 volunteers in 5,000 not-for-profit organisations and more. In my electorate I was really pleased to be able to acknowledge some of the volunteers that do this fantastic work. For example, June Baker has done tremendous work for Strathdevon aged care; Josephine Weeks and Judy Ling for the tremendous service that they have given to the Central Coast municipality and community; Julia Butler Ross for the Central North Wildlife Care and Rescue Organisation; Kaye Cameron for tireless work for the Burnie Eisteddfod; Diane and Mick Davis for their tremendous work on the Penguin Visitor Information Centre; Linda Munday for Zodiac Gymnastics Club; Gwen Pulford for the CWA Devonport and the fantastic work she has done through that organisation; Pamela Hutton for her tremendous work for Riding for the Disabled; and Sarina Laidler and Greg Morris, for instance, on King Island and their fantastic work there. I want to congratulate those people and all those other volunteers in my electorate who give of themselves and indeed create the fabric of our community. Sarina on King Island is employed as a health promotion officer and has done much work beyond her paid employment. She is an active member of the multipurpose advisory committee for the local hospital, a volunteer for the Tasmanian Ambulance Service for many years and an inaugural member and creator of the Phoenix Community House management committee, which has also auspiced the creation of the King Island Men's Club. She is also a very active member of the local Lions Club, as well as giving in every other way, even in the Parents and Friends Association on King Island. She has a fellow member on King Island, Greg Morris, who has given tireless work to the King Island Regional Development Organisation, the King Island Volunteer Ambulance Service, the King Island Natural Resource Management Group, the Uniting Church parish council, the King Island shipping group, the King Island Chamber of Commerce, the SES and even the King Island Telecommunications Working Party. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 4891 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS BILLS 4892 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 4892

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012

Second Reading 4892 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) 0V5 Before the debate is resumed on this bill, I remind the Main Committee that, pursuant to the resolution agreed to by the House on 10 May 2011, this order of the day will be debated concurrently with Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-12 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-12. Debate resumed on the motion: That this bill be now read a second time. to which the following amendment was moved: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) condemns the Government for incorporating in an annual appropriation bill provisions to increase the limit on government borrowings above the total of $200 billion; (2) recognises that a special case must be made for such a significant increase in borrowing limits and that the Government must explain any special circumstances that it believes justify such an increase; and (3) demands that the Parliament be given the opportunity to consider separately and vote on the proposed increases in borrowing limits set out in Part 5 of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2001-12." The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 The immediate question before the chair is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 10:03 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I rise to support emphatically the omission of words and the change put forward by the member for Goldstein. When we reflect upon this budget in its entirety and the three appropriation bills it is important that we look upon the facts as stated in the budget, starting with the prebudget rhetoric of a tough Labor budget, of tightening of belts, and all we actually see is union mates being rewarded with millions and millions of dollars and $2 billion being slugged out of the pockets of families because of wasteful spending. In this budget the government delivered total savings of only about $2.7 billion over five years where total spending is almost $1.9 trillion. That amounts to 14c in every $100 and the majority of savings do not even come in until 2014-15, miraculously after the government has delivered their long-awaited surplus. As the member for Longman so eloquently put it last night in parliament, 'I celebrate my 21st birthday soon. In that time a Labor government has never delivered a surplus budget.' As all market commentators have agreed, this budget will do nothing to stop interest rate rises. It is also instructive to note that one-third of all Labor's savings are actually new taxes. It is a vagary of taxation law and of the way Treasury operates that a taxation hike is construed as a saving. We note from the budget that the budget deficit for the current year, 2010-11, is soaring to $49.4 billion. The forecast deficit for 2011-12 has blown out by $10.3 billion to a staggering $22.6 billion deficit for the next financial year. The net government debt is climbing to a record $107 billion in 2011-12 and it is forecast to remain at over $100 billion in the foreseeable future, at least to the next four years—that is, net debt of $4,700 for every man, woman and child, for every Australian. Gross borrowings required to furnish the debt, as well as provide the necessary cash flow and so on, are forecast to go over $200 billion with the government requesting authority to increase gross debt to a quarter of a trillion dollars. It is a typical, old-fashioned, Labor budget—big on taxes, big on spending, very low on helping householders battle high costs of living, low on helping battlers deal with the high cost of petrol, electricity, gas, groceries, health costs and home repayments. There are no tax cuts for the first time in eight years, just tax hikes. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) is for ordinary annual services of $72.85 billion and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) is looking at $7.4 billion to allow full annual appropriations in the Consolidated Revenue Fund for services that are not ordinary annual revenue. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) also increases the government's gross debt ceiling from $200 billion to a quarter of a trillion. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) is $180 million to deal with the appropriating funds for the proper running of government services. The Prime Minister was right when she said this was a traditional Labor budget. She was spot on. There is no duplicity here. There is no 'There'll be no carbon tax in my government' here. She was spot on when she said, 'This will be a traditional Labor budget,' and it has been—a huge deficit, huge borrowings, huge debts and huge taxes, all spun with a rhetorical line about being tough. The only thing they are being tough on is their lack of resolve to save money. They talk about the need to repay debt but they lift the debt ceiling to record levels. They talk about easing cost-of-living pressures and then they slug $2 billion out of family assistance to pay for wasteful spending. As a matter of fact, in November last year we were told that the deficit for 2010-11, the current financial year, would be $41½ billion. On budget night it was revealed to blow out to almost $50 billion, a change of almost $10 billion—they got it wrong. In November we were told that net debt would peak at $94 billion; we are now told it will peak at $107 billion, or a $13 billion blow-out. Not only is net debt to stay above $ 100 billion for at least the next four years but the government will continue to borrow $135 million a day and Labor's debt repayment will be a staggering $7 billion a year. Cumulative interest on Labor 's debt will be more than $26 billion over the next four years. That is the legacy of this Labor government. Think of the infrastructure, the railheads, the ports, the hospitals, the community services that could be funded if this government had not wastefully spent money on recurrent expenses. Labor does not like to admit that we have the highest interest rates in the OECD and among the highest home mortgage rates in the world. Labor's reckless spending and borrowing has seen interest rates higher than they would otherwise be. Since budget night there has been universal consensus that Labor's budget will have zero impact on the Reserve Bank's monetary policy, nor does anyone admit that under the Rudd-Gillard governments we have seen the greatest growth in government spending since the days of Whitlam. The best that could be said about the situation is that at least Whitlam had some style about him. In less than four years Labor has beaten Paul Keating's record. When he left $96 billion in net debt in 1996 the coalition paid that off and in just four years we are now left with $107 billion of debt. Labor's spending as a percentage of GDP is 25.2 per cent, almost three per cent higher than the last year of the Howard government. I note that it is not as high as the Scandinavian countries that the government likes to point to with respect to good policy, where government spending as a percentage of GDP is up to 50 per cent. Perhaps that is where this government wants to go: the ultimate nanny state. You the taxpayer and I the taxpayer do not know what is good for us, but the nanny Labor government clearly does. Spending has gone from $271 billion in 2007-08 to $362 billion in 2011-12 under this government. It is the greatest growth in real spending since the disastrous Whitlam years. Yes, Prime Minister, you were spot-on on budget night: this is a traditional Labor budget, boots and all. While the government said it was bound by tight fiscal rules and would offset all new spending with savings measures, the budget papers tell a completely different story. The government cannot even manage to offset new spending in 2011-12, with a $2.3 billion deficit in that area. Of the $21 billion in savings the government claims over the forward estimates, at least 30 per cent of them are new and increased taxes and they will spend $19 billion of it on other stuff. In fact the $1.7 billion flood levy is actually claimed as the biggest saving in the budget. It is staggering that a flood levy is called a saving. It is mind-boggling how much money is being wasted. They could not even find $1.7 billion in a $360 billion budget to deal with natural disasters that are inevitable in a land of drought and flooding rains. It all harks back to pink batts, school halls and $900 cheques, all stuff that our children will pay off because of the reckless spending. Now we see a $1.7 billion blowout as a result of Labor's failed border protection policies. The Labor government stood here for years and said: 'It is the push factors that are doing it. There is nothing we can do.' They have now reversed that and said: 'We will open Manus Island. We will take a one for five swap with Malaysia. That will stop it.' They have now realised it is the pull factors. It is a complete sham. Labor in opposition prior to 2007 condemned the Howard government for spending an 'abhorrent' $100 million dealing with our borders. They said such expenditure was a tragedy. The Prime Minister, when she was in opposition and we were getting three boats a year, rolled out that great line, 'Another boat, another policy failure.' Well, Prime Minister, we are getting three boats a week and $100 million has now become $1.7 billion. We are now finding the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship with his head through a manhole trying to convince asylum seekers to get down from a roof. That is what things have come to with this Labor government. The bottom line is that the budget is based on a lie. The carbon tax revenue is nowhere in the budget, nor are any expenses associated with it. This carbon tax is a tax the Prime Minister said would never happen. 'There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead,' she said, hoping to win an election, only to reveal the truth a few days later. Revenue from the mining tax is factored into the budget, yet a tax is not even bedded down and apparently starts on the same day that the carbon tax is meant to start. The carbon tax is not in the budget but the mining tax revenue is. We know the carbon tax will simply export jobs and increase the cost of everything. Let us take cement, for example. The cement process uses a chemical process to release carbon dioxide to take, ostensibly, limestone and reduce it down, and 50 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions in cement production occur through that chemical process. There is no way to improve it and there is no way to rationalise it. Another 35 per cent is in the following processes, before you release the small balls of cement basis, and then 15 per cent is in the large rolling and crushing machines. The bottom line is that there is no way to reduce emissions in the production of cement. So how is the carbon tax going to work in the cement industry? Apart from all cement being imported, all we have done is move emissions offshore. Instead of using power from black coal fired power stations we are going to move emissions offshore to nasty, brown wet coal power stations in China. Emissions will go up and jobs will go down, but apparently this carbon tax is good for us. Revenue from the mining taxes is in the budget; revenue from the carbon tax is not in the budget. Labor plans to borrow $18.2 billion for the NBN over the forward estimates, yet the potential for waste in this project is frightening. It will be a $50 billion project, and we all know that 80 per cent of IT projects blow out. It could be much higher. This is government betting on picking a technology when we know, right now, as a statement of fact that for every one user of wired broadband there are seven users of wireless broadband. I say to the government: how does your NBN help me with my iPad? How does it help me use my tablet and my mobile communication devices? How can it possibly work? How does it help me use wireless on my laptop? It does not. This is a government picking technology winners because Minister Conroy could not get the 2007 election policy correct of $4.7 billion and broadband to 98 per cent of Australians. On a flight to PNG the former Prime Minister changed his mind to $47 billion and broadband to 90 per cent of Australians. Well done; no wonder Labor knifed you in the back. The budget is a house of cards, further illustrated by the decision of the Western Australian government to increase iron ore fines royalties by over $2 billion. Under the terms of the Prime Minister's agreement with the big three, the Commonwealth is obliged to credit in full all increased royalties from mining companies that are subject to the MRRT. This is of course added pressure on Labor's budget. What is particularly galling is the hit on families: $2 billion will be gouged for the freezing of indexation of family tax payment supplements and upper income thresholds, despite the government talking down the impact of these changes at a time when families are struggling with massive cost-of-living increases. Electricity has gone up by 51 per cent since this government came to power. The truth is that $2 billion ripped away from struggling families will hurt them in one shape or form. On top of that, as if we did not have overpriced school halls, pink batts and solar panel disasters, we have $376 million on 'building the entertainment revolution' through set-top boxes. It is absolutely and utterly deplorable. The budget is a sham. It is an incredibly wasted opportunity, and the Prime Minister is right: it is a typical Labor budget. 10:18 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I do like the member for Fadden. He will be disappointed that I am not wearing my bootstraps as I stand to speak about this very Labor budget. I want to let the member for Fadden know that my electorate is very pleased about the benefits that will come from this very Labor budget, to this very Labor and indeed very needy electorate, which is what Labor budgets tend to be about. They are about assisting those people in our community who are probably more disadvantaged than others and who are in greater need of services. In a moment I will talk about my community and how this budget will be of benefit to them. Firstly, however, in relation to how the previous Howard government dealt with illegal entrants, the infamous Pacific solution—and though I will say this and it will go into Hansard, I stand to be corrected—border protection might have cost about $100 million but I remember the figure of about $1 billion as being the cost to the Australian taxpayer for running the Pacific solution. Mr Robert HWT $70 million. Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT I do not think that it was $70 million. I remember that there was a lot of debate at that time about the enormous amount of money that was being spent. I have a recollection of some serious criticism of the government in relation to its insistence on spending a lot of money maintaining one individual on Nauru. I say this because this issue of illegal entrants is a very important issue to this country and it has been for a long period of time. It is an issue that carries many costs, one of which is a financial cost. So if we want to play politics with who is spending more and who is spending less and who is doing a better job of managing this, my view is that we need to look at the global situation and put our problem in the context of what is going on internationally. We might find that other regions in the world, especially in Europe, shoulder a greater burden of illegal entrants than this country does. I do not want to downplay the significance of the problem for Australia, but I want to make this point because we talk about it all the time without thinking. There are other places in the world that are dealing with this issue where the problem is 20, if not more, times worse than ours. So we need to keep it in perspective. Back to the budget: this very Labor budget is of great benefit to my electorate and I am very pleased to speak to it today. I am particularly pleased to speak to it because the budget has introduced a very significant initiative aimed at assisting people back into the workforce. I know that we talk about this all the time. All governments talk about their desire to help people get back into the workforce, and lots of programs are devised and lots of money is spent to help people, whether they are from the disability sector, young people or mature age workers. This is a problem that has been with us for some time. We spend a lot of money and a lot of words on trying to get people back into work. We do that because it is very important for people to be working. Having a constructive life—one in which you are responsible for your day-to-day living—is very important. The dignity of work adds to the dignity of self. There are a whole series of other important psychological factors there, so we talk a lot about getting people into work. But there is always one group of people who, for whatever reason, seem not to be able to avail themselves of these programs, and a lot of those people live in my electorate. My electorate has a very high rate of unemployment for young people—probably one of the highest in the country. It has been like that for a long period of time. There are a lot of reasons why that is the case. Over my years as the member I have always been perplexed—like a lot of our service deliverers—as to why we cannot succeed in reducing that unemployment level. One of the reasons is that, while there are a lot of services provided, at some point people are not getting the best information regarding how they can either get a job or get the relevant training necessary to get them into long-term employment. Someone has finally decided to acknowledge this and try and do something about it. The government, through this budget, has announced a $304 million package that is aimed squarely at the unemployed and in particular the youth unemployed and those on long-term income support, the most vulnerable people and the people who need the greatest assistance and support to get into the workforce. The $304 million package involves 10 locations in the country. This is a package that requires the local communities to develop a structure. My electorate of Calwell is one of those 10 locations. The Hume City Council, which shares, as I have said many times before, the same borders as the federal seat of Calwell, is one of the local government authorities to have been chosen. I make the point that the package is an initiative of this budget, it is a very important initiative and it is part of the budget's aim to build a bigger workforce. We do this through more targeted investment in skills and training and through all sorts of measures to encourage participation. But, more importantly, through this program we will do it by actually helping people to learn about the prospects and those things that are available to them in the community so they can actually be helped. Not too much attention has been paid to that aspect of it in the past. We do this at a time—and, again, I speak very much about my electorate—when it is expected that, nationwide, unemployment will fall from its current level of about five per cent to about 4.5 per cent during the next two years. It is expected that half a million new jobs will be created. I know that they are only figures but, obviously, the people that cast the economic trends have a fair idea of where the employment prospects are in this country. There is no doubt that we have great potential for growth in Australia. We acknowledge that a shortage of participants in the workforce will be one of our drawbacks if we do not address it. We need to do that at a time when people, such as those in my electorate, are experiencing higher unemployment than the national average. The intention of this $304 million initiative is to not only assist those people in my electorate but also provide a structure that they themselves create, not one that is imposed from above but one that is developed from the ground and responds specifically to the issues that prevent people from availing themselves of programs. It is the local community on the ground that will decide how it creates a pathway for its community. Of the $304 million funding, $38.2 million over four years will be allocated to support this local workforce participation through what will be called the Community Innovation through Collaboration initiative. Collaboration, I think, is the key word here, because it will work with all the stakeholders and the service deliverers. The sum of $25 million has been allocated for a Local Solutions Fund for community organisations to deliver the programs, as I said, to help access educational and employment options, and a further $13.2 million has been set aside to provide service coordinators and community based facilitators. Whilst it is important for the community to be brought together to actually develop a structure to assist itself, it is necessary to have an overall coordinator who is not necessarily attached to any of the major bureaucracies but who is there to assist the community and help them work their way through the plan of action that I am looking forward to my community putting together in the next few months. I was very pleased about this announcement. When I got back to my electorate last week I thought it would be absolutely important to hit the ground running on this one. I recognise that we have an opportunity to shape and mould this program. I am happy to report to the House that we called together some of our major local stakeholders to brief them about the government's package and to discuss how they saw this potential and how they thought we could bring it all together so that it could maximise the benefits for our people. Local members will have a significant role to play in this, and I think that is a very good thing—local members know their community better than anybody else does, so we have a very important role to play in setting up this local advisory group. I decided that I would invite a core group of people from my electorate—the key stakeholders—who I thought would serve as the initial consultation group. I want to list them because they are very important people not only to me as a member of parliament but also to my community. I want to start by mentioning Mr Tony Coppola, who is the senior manager at Northern Melbourne Regional Development Australia. They are responsible for building partnerships between all levels of government, local business, community groups and key regional stakeholders in order to provide responses to economic, environmental and social issues affecting all of Melbourne's north. Mr Coppola is also a representative of North Link and its executive director, Mick Butera, assists him in this role. I also invited the founder and executive officer of the Bridge of Hope Foundation, Mr John Walsh. Bridge of Hope is a registered charity that specialises in training and providing job opportunities for troubled youth and those in juvenile detention. The group of young people who are referred to as juvenile offenders—I have a very large number of those young people in my electorate—is one that we tend to forget about. We do not even talk about them, let alone try and devise opportunities for them. These are a particularly vulnerable group of young people because they have special needs. Many of them will end up in juvenile detention for a whole series of reasons which I will not go into. The key is what happens to them when they get out. Many of them will only be 16, 17 or 18—young people who need to be assisted back either into education or into some sort of training and given an opportunity. Often people do not want to deal with juvenile offenders, they do not want them. We all face discrimination. I would probably face discrimination if I were suddenly to become unemployed—the discrimination that comes with being a mature-age person. It might mortify me to think that, but my age might be a problem for me in the workforce. These young people have all sorts of other problems. They are not as empowered as I or someone else may be. They need a fair go and they do not get a fair go. We need to change attitudes towards them before we can even help them. So I want to commend John Walsh and the Bridge of Hope, which hopes to do a lot of work in this area but needs to partner with government. I invited him to this meeting because I think they have a very important role to play. The CEO of Brite Services, Margaret Ruff, was also invited. Brite is one of those extraordinary organisations that I have had the pleasure of representing. Brite is probably the only Australian disability enterprise in this country. It is an organisation that specialises in the employment of people with disabilities. I say it is unique because it started off being a sheltered workshop some 25 years ago when we did refer to these organisations as sheltered workshops. Thankfully, we all learnt that that was not very flattering language to use. These are people with special needs but nevertheless they like to work and Brite offers them long-term employment and they have become a thriving business. I am very proud of Brite because they have managed to win contracts for their people and there is a long future ahead for the people who work at Brite. Another person who I invited was Ian Adotey. Ian is from the Broadmeadows Community Neighbourhood Renewal Project, which comprises another set of people who specialise in assisting the most vulnerable. Finally, I invited the CEO of Spectrum Migrant Resource Centres, Mrs Rosemary Kelada. Spectrum does an incredible amount of work for new immigrants in my electorate. They implement Australia's very successful settlement services. Unfortunately, I am running out of time, but I want to thank them for coming to that meeting and I look forward to working with them in the next few months to implement the government's program. (Time expired) 10:34 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I would like to raise several issues today in relation to the federal budget and also some broader concerns within my electorate. Firstly I want to highlight the need for the federal government to support an application for $65 million to expand and enhance the Latrobe Regional Hospital under the Health and Hospitals Fund regional priority round. This application is for funding to build a new improved emergency department and additional endoscopy facilities and offer more beds for acute care. By way of background, LRH is a designated regional health service and major provider of acute, subacute, mental health and specialist age care services for the Gippsland community. LRH is also an important teaching and training facility working in close partnership with Monash University School of Rural Health and Monash University Gippsland Medical School. Gippsland has some of the poorest health outcomes in Victoria. Current facilities fall well below existing standards and are not adequate to meet growing community needs, which are affecting LRH's ability to meet its designated role as a regional hospital and a teaching facility. This situation will be exacerbated in the future with predicted growth in demand of 13 per cent over the next 10 years. It is critical in that regard that the federal government recognises the growth that is going on in the Latrobe Valley community. With an ageing population, the increase in demand on our health services is apparent and I encourage the federal government to continue to invest in facilities at LRH in particular. The improved facilities and the increased capabilities will also make it easier for us to recruit and train medical specialists in the region and reduce the burden on Melbourne health services. Naturally there is a double benefit in that regard—we can actually service more people in our local communities rather than having them be forced to go to Melbourne, adding to the waiting lists in Melbourne. This is an opportunity for us in regional areas. I am advised that the cost of unnecessary patient transport at the moment is in the vicinity of $29 million a year, and that money could be recouped by government as a result of expanding this facility so that more patients can be treated in the Latrobe Valley. We also have the hidden health issue of patients who are deciding not to seek treatment because it is too difficult for them to access it, particularly in communities like Gippsland where the travel to Melbourne can be in excess of three or four hours. People are making the decision that it is all too hard to go to Melbourne, find accommodation and access services in the city. I admit it is hard to measure this particular issue, but I constantly receive anecdotal information about people from the more remote parts of my region who are choosing not to pursue advanced treatment because they have to go to Melbourne. It is a key concern for us in our regional communities. It is one of the reasons I have been so keen to be an advocate in this place for Rotary Gippsland Centenary House, which provides accommodation units for people who are receiving treatment at LRH. I would like to congratulate the federal government and the state government for continuing the level of bipartisan support for this magnificent facility. The Gillard government has supported the community fundraising efforts by providing $1.5 million for the next stage of the development, which will see nine more units being built. I actually inspected the progress on these units only a few weeks ago and I can report to the House that all is going very well there. It is going to be a magnificent addition to this facility, which has been such a crucial part of providing accommodation and care for people as they are away from their home at a very stressful time in their lives. I do take this opportunity to encourage the minister to visit our region for the official opening of this facility. It would be great to see her there for the occasion, which we hope will be towards the end of this year. I am sure she will be impressed by the work of local builders. I congratulate the organisers and the board of management for engaging the local building firms to undertake this project. The planned upgrade that we are talking about is stage 2A of a larger redevelopment, so we are talking about substantial amounts of money. A master plan has been endorsed by the Victorian Department of Health, under both the previous Labor state government and the current coalition government. The project does have government support. It also has widespread community support, particularly the rebuilding of the hospital's emergency department where waiting times have become an issue of increasing concern. I have a great deal of sympathy for the staff at the front-line of the emergency department. They often cop all the poor headlines in terms of people being forced to wait for treatment and to wait on trolleys for extended periods of time. The staff bear the brunt of that criticism when, really, they are completely overwhelmed by the demand for services. I do encourage the federal government to continue to work with the state government on this most important upgrade and opportunity to expand the facilities at LRH. On another positive note, it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity now to mention the $23 million worth of funding announced by the federal government on 7 April last year. This funding was to expand the Gippsland Cancer Care Centre and provide an additional 414 radiation treatments and 8,000 chemotherapy treatments. I understand expressions of interest will be advertised next week for construction on this project. Again, it is a project which is much needed, tragically, in my community. The expansion of the Gippsland Cancer Care Centre will make LRH one of the prime facilities for the delivery of cancer care services in Victoria and according to LRH staff this funding will allow for a significant expansion of the radiotherapy, chemotherapy and dialysis units as well as an expansion to the pharmacy. It is tragic but it is a fact of life in my region that there is a growing need for cancer treatment in the broader Gippsland community and it is essential that patients can access these services in our region. The expansion will make LRH a leader in this area as the cancer centre doubles in size. On behalf of my community, I do welcome the funding from the federal government in that regard. It is also important, in the context of that federal funding, to mention the fact—and reflect on it—of the inspirational efforts of the local community and the financial contribution they have been able to make to support this initiative. The Gippsland Cancer Care Centre has been the beneficiary of many fundraising events in recent years, several of which I have had the opportunity to attend. They have always been very well run. I refer to things like gala balls and community fun runs. It is a remarkable effort when you look at the socioeconomics of my community. They have been able to raise in excess of $3.5 million since the Gippsland Cancer Centre Appeal was launched in 2003. That is in addition to the fundraising that has been going on for Gippsland Rotary Centenary House. So I do take this opportunity to thank my community for their work in that regard. I thank the various board members who have served as volunteers on those fundraising committees, the business sponsors, the philanthropic organisations and the members of the broader general public who have been prepared to give their time and their money in such a generous manner. I think regional communities are renowned for such efforts and it is a real tribute to the people of Gippsland that they are such committed stakeholders in our health services. Although I have focused a lot on the Latrobe Valley here today, let me assure the House that right across my region there are auxiliaries and community based boards which are doing an extraordinary job every day of the week to supplement whatever government funding is available through the various health budgets. Without the efforts of these volunteers the health situation in every part of Gippsland would be far worse. On a separate issue also to do with public health, I want to draw the attention of the House to an issue which is developing as quite a significant concern in the Bairnsdale district—a colony of flying foxes which roosts on the banks of the Mitchell River. It has been the subject of increased public debate in East Gippsland. I acknowledge that this is primarily a state issue but federal responsibilities do come into force under the provisions of the EPBC Act. I have brought this issue to the attention of the minister for environment but the urgency of the issue is about to escalate following the issuing of a health warning by the Victorian Department of Health only yesterday. A flying fox found at Bairnsdale has been detected as carrying the Australian bat lyssavirus and I will refer directly to the warning by Victoria's Chief Health Officer, Dr John Carnie. He says: Under no circumstances should people handle flying foxes on their property as some diseases they carry, such as Australian Bat Lyssavirus, are transmissible to humans, … Australian Bat Lyssavirus is a rare, but fatal disease which may be transmitted from flying foxes to humans. Domestic pets may also be at risk. The virus is transmitted through being scratched or bitten by a flying fox. It goes on to say: Although it is known that many flying foxes across Australia carry the virus, instances of transmission to humans are very rare, with only two cases ever having been recorded—both of which were seen in Queensland. Australian Bat Lyssavirus is detected from time to time in flying foxes in Victoria, but no human cases have ever occurred here. The disease has never occurred in domestic pets in Victoria. While that is reassuring to some extent, the fact that the Victorian Chief Health Officer has had to issue a warning in relation to flying foxes in the Bairnsdale area is of great concern to my community. I would also like to refer to comments from a nearby resident who has written to the federal minister for regional development to raise her concerns in this regard. The letter describes the situation in Bairnsdale: Since 2003 we have had a problem with bats. The bats have created a very comfortable colony amongst the residents of Bairnsdale, which increases by the year and have extended to 33,000 in number at times … As we have had an unusually wet year, the putrid smell has become unbearable for anyone living within the town. The bat colony is in a forested area along the Mitchell River amongst poplar trees, situated within meters, between and in front of residential homes in the township and affects residents as far as a kilometer away … The letter goes on to describe the battle by residents to have poplar trees removed. It is worth reflecting that the poplar trees are an introduced species and they are affected by white ants, in this particular case. The resident is critical of the lack of action by the Department of Sustainability of Environment, and I quote her again: We do understand that the bat colony is protected, we are not asking for them to be killed, just removed. We feel that if the trees (which are considered dangerous and overhang a public footpath/bicycle track along the river banks) are removed, the bats are intelligent enough to find another forested area (of which there is plenty in the Gippsland area) in which to live. We are now given to understand from a report issued by the DSE that they want the bat colony to remain, as they consider it to be a tourist attraction and if the trees are removed, they will erect artificial roosts for the bats! The report also states that they wish to educate us on the benefits of 'co-habiting with wildlife'. We think that this is plain stupidity given that the people writing these reports do not live anywhere near the bats and consequently, do not have to tolerate the constant noise and putrid stench from these animals, with which we have to live. Having had the opportunity to inspect the colony personally, I have to agree with the letter writer: there is a stench associated with the flying foxes. The quality of life of nearby residents is being severely compromised and the constant noise is having an impact on people's health—and that is without even considering the issue of disease which may be borne by the flying foxes. So this warning from Victoria's chief health officer will, I think, escalate the concerns within my community. At a local level I have been working with my local state MP, Tim Bull, who I know is trying to find a way through the layers of bureaucracy to resolve the situation. At a federal level I will be seeking assurances from the federal government that it will not be using the provisions of the EPBC Act as an excuse to interfere in this matter. The location of the colony is a real problem for my community, and the local agencies need to develop a management plan which balances difficult environmental issues but clearly places the rights of the human population ahead of the flying foxes. In the short amount of time I have left I would like to reflect on one other matter which relates to the federal budget, the federal government's failure to support my efforts to secure Commonwealth funding for the Princes Highway east of Sale. I have raised this issue in the House on several occasions in the past. I have also raised it directly with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and, to be fair to the minister, he has given me a fair hearing in this matter. I have tabled petitions from my community, which reflects the level of concern throughout the Broader Gippsland region. The Princes Highway east of Sale is currently not eligible for Commonwealth funding in any form whatsoever; it is a responsibility primarily of the state government. The highway from Sale to Traralgon has been the beneficiary of about $140 million of federal funding under a joint project to see some duplication works undertaken. That does not gel with the people of Gippsland. It does not make sense for them that such a major highway, which is in desperate need of government funding to improve it from Sale to the New South Wales border, will not be able to access Commonwealth funding in the future. The stretch of highway I am talking about has one of the highest accident and fatality rates in Victoria. Tragically, there was another death this week. Hardly a month goes by without a fatality on that road. I am not saying every accident is a result of the condition of the road, but there is no question that it is a contributing factor to the high accident and fatality rates. I have been working with my local state MP, Tim Bull, in relation to this matter and just recently we both wrote a letter to the state minister seeking support to fund a safety audit and the development of a 10-year strategy to upgrade the highway east of Sale. We also want the state minister to assist us in lobbying the federal government to make the highway east of Sale eligible for Commonwealth funding. From my previous discussions with regional VicRoads staff, there does not seem to be a long-term plan in place for the staged upgrade of even the most basic safety features such as shoulder sealing, more overtaking lines, realignment of dangerous corners and improvements to the road surface. With an increase in the use of the road by large recreational vehicles, along with the increased size of the commercial vehicles on the road—the trucks, the caravans and those large Winnebago type vehicles—we are seeing a very close interface between large vehicles when they pass each other on some sections of the road, particularly east of Orbost to the New South Wales border, where there is no shoulder for more than 40 kilometres. The margin for error is so small that we desperately need to do something about it. I fear that we are going to have a major accident on the road involving a bus carrying children or tourists through the region and it is going to take a situation like that before the state and federal governments recognise their responsibilities to undertake a major program of upgrading this stretch of highway. In my view, too much of the current debate about highway funding east of Sale is based on anecdotal evidence. There needs to be a complete safety audit with a view towards developing a 10-year strategy so the federal government can then buy into it and take responsibility for parts of the road that need to be upgraded. In addition to the petition, which is still out there gathering signatures, our view is being supported by the local chambers of commerce. I believe that there is a real opportunity here for both the state and the federal road ministers to work in partnership with my community. I invite both the state and the federal road ministers to come to Gippsland, take a firsthand look at the road and see for themselves the risks that our motorists are faced with on a daily basis. (Time expired) 10:49 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 and related budget bills. There is no doubt that Australia has an economy in a position envied by many in the developed world. Our national debt is among the lowest in the world at 7.2 per cent of GDP, 10 times less than the United States of America at 72 per cent; our unemployment level is nearly half that of other major industrial countries at 4.9 per cent, compared with 9.6 per cent in France and nine per cent in the United States of America; our official interest rates are still two percentage points lower than when the coalition lost office; and our terms of trade are the best in 140 years. On top of this, the Labor government has created 700,000 jobs since 2007, during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and we are aiming to create another 500,000 jobs. These comparatively good economic statistics were not brought about by chance but rather by good governance and good decisions. There is no doubt that Australia dealt with the global financial crisis better than most. None of these outcomes would have been possible without the two stimulus packages that kept Australians in jobs. Although there are many Australians feeling the cost-of-living pressures, including in my electorate of Reid, it would have been much worse if the Labor government had not acted as swiftly and decisively as we did and the opposition had had their way, which was to cut millions of jobs. Our government responded swiftly and appropriately when confronting the global financial crisis. That helped our country weather the storm. The 2011-12 budget is about keeping the economy healthy. We must not rest on our laurels. We must continue to strengthen our economy and create new opportunities. That is why this budget will get us back in the black by 2012-13 and spread the opportunities of the mining boom. As with all good governments, we must consider the context of our fiscal position and plan for an even better future, noting all of the obstacles and constraints. For the Gillard government, the expected tax collection over the last two years has been cut by $16 billion, as a result of historic national natural disasters, the GFC and the high Australian dollar. However, this will not prevent the government from making important investment in vital areas such as training, education and health. The Chief Executive Officer of Australian Industry Group, Ms Heather Ridout, stated: This year's Federal Budget is solid on the fundamentals of skills, infrastructure and fiscal responsibility. These investments will ease capacity constraints in these tight economic times. Further, Ms Ridout noted on the establishment of a National Workforce and Productivity Agency: All up, this substantial package, which delivers a significant new investment over a sustained period, will stand Australia in good stead in the years ahead. Ai Group argued hard for this, and we are delighted to see the proposals included in the Budget. The National Workforce and Productivity Agency will work with industry to identify critical skills needs and develop workforce plans and issues. Another major role of the agency will be to administer the new Workforce Development Fund. As part of the focus on jobs, a new Workforce Development Fund will be created to respond to the most critical emerging skills needed in Australia and is expected to deliver 130,000 new training places over four years. Our government is also committed to assisting apprentices, raising the quality of their training and providing incentives to keep them in training. This includes investing in a national apprenticeship mentoring program to support apprentices to finish their training, and developing new apprenticeship models that allow apprentices to develop faster and that recognise prior learning. In my electorate of Reid, I have spoken previously on the wonderful facility of the Southern Cross Catholic Vocational College in Burwood. With joint funding from the federal government and the Catholic Education Office, today the college is a state-of-the-art trade training centre with over 100 students already enrolled. I remind the House that, during the last federal election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition threatened that, if elected, he would stop the funding of trade training centres. Fortunately this did not occur, and I was very pleased to welcome the Prime Minister to Reid only a few weeks ago, and specifically to the Southern Cross Catholic Vocational College in Burwood, where she witnessed firsthand the state-of-the-art facilities on offer for students. The Prime Minister met some of our future mechanics, future beauticians and future carpenters. The Prime Minister even gave a short interview with aspiring journalists as part of their media studies—a recording that they will surely keep for posterity. I am extremely proud to be a member of a government that continues to acknowledge the importance of trade training and support for apprenticeships. The initiatives continue to assist skills development in many different learning environments, and I welcome these initiatives. In addition to the National Workplace Workforce and Productivity Agency, the Workforce Development Fund and a national apprenticeship mentoring program, our government will also offer students from years 9 to 12 a new national trade cadetship as an option under the Australian curriculum. The cadetships will be delivered through the trade training centres and other eligible venues, with up to 50,000 additional structured work experience places provided to students. This will assist in real work experience for apprentices and ensure they are ready to start their jobs with confidence once they have graduated. However, unlike the graduates of the Southern Cross College of Vocational Education, some Australians struggle with basic numeracy and literacy, and this is a barrier that prevents them from participating in the workforce. As I said before, this budget does not forget the people who need us most, and our government is supporting Australians to help themselves and improve their future work opportunities by improving their basic skills. I could not agree more with the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Chris Evans, when he said that basic training is paramount to building this country's workforce. That is why I am so pleased that this government is funding 30,000 additional places for jobseekers in the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program. Without basic literacy, many people are condemned to a life of little opportunity and, sadly, in many cases, long-term unemployment. Our government has committed to changing this by providing long-term job seekers with critical skills to allow them to participate more fully in the workforce. This additional funding is targeted at job seekers who are registered with Centrelink and are identified as experiencing significant disadvantage in the labour market due to low levels of language, literacy and/or numeracy. These are targeted programs where each participant is given an individual training plan which is tailored to meet their specific needs. The training program is typically face-to-face and can be vocationally oriented. For those who are struggling in a large group setting, there is the opportunity for them to engage in small group training. The increased funding of such programs helps break down these barriers for more Australians and allow them to not only improve their lives and engage in further study but to actively participate in the economy. Without literacy, these Australians are vulnerable. It is important that Australians who struggle with literacy do not feel ashamed and, instead, take action and are helped to improve their skills. Our government is supporting these vulnerable Australians to do just that. We are helping to break the long-term cycles of lost opportunity and unemployment by supporting Australians who need help with basic literacy to improve their skills and, in turn, improve their job prospects. None of the unemployed people I speak to really want to be reliant on unemployment benefits. The people I speak to want to work, and this initiative will help some of the most vulnerable in our society to be able to do just that. On this point, I note that our government believes in ensuring everyone is given the support and the skills they need to seek out employment. With unemployment at low levels, this indicates the government is on the right track. Our government is also on the right track when it comes to education. We acknowledge and value the challenging but important job done by teachers throughout Australia, particularly those who teach students with disabilities. That is why our government will invest $200 million over three years to support students with disabilities in their classrooms and improve their learning opportunities. I believe this is due recognition of the need to improve support for students with disabilities. I am confident this added support will not only directly benefit students but will also be of immense benefit and assistance to their teachers. I commend the Treasurer for this investment and I am pleased to note that this investment has been welcomed by the New South Wales Teachers Federation. The additional funding will provide new services, such as speech and occupational therapy, at-school and in-class support, as well as access to specialised equipment. For higher education, the government is making the significant investment of a further $1.4 billion to meet the demand for growth in university enrolments. In this year alone the extra funding will provide 480,000 undergraduate places. Funding will also aim to upgrade infrastructure at regional tertiary institutions and assist universities to support, attract and retain students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Despite the tough decisions on savings measures that our government made in this budget, education was one area where we did not hesitate to provide further assistance. The federal Labor government has nearly doubled the national education budget because it is core to our belief that education is essential to our long-term prosperity. A community with excellent skills has enhanced opportunities and can remain competitive in a global labour market. We are a government that believes in providing all Australians, irrespective of their background, the opportunity and encouragement to achieve that potential. There is only one area that could be more important than education, and that is health. Nothing is more important than the health of our family and friends. My electorate of Reid boasts one of the best hospitals in the state, Concord Hospital, as well as many local GPs and medical services and, being part of the inner west of Sydney, our services are rated among the best in terms of accessibility and quality. The Gillard government is making an unprecedented investment of $3 billion in health reform right across Australia. Notably, the government has made the largest Commonwealth commitment to mental health services in Australia's history, including $1.5 billion worth of investment in this budget. The $2.2 billion mental health reform package targets funding where the services in those communities need it most, with a total of 90 headspace clinics, as well as early detection to support young people with mental illness. I know that my electorate would be very pleased to receive direct funding under this initiative. Many constituents have raised their concerns with me about the need for more funding for mental health, and this unprecedented investment by our government has led to many people emailing their support for this measure. So I congratulate the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing. I know families and friends who care for people suffering with mental health conditions realise how important accessible treatment is for their loved ones, and I am sure that the new funding will go a long way to addressing this very important matter. I also commend the Minister for Health and Ageing on her Diagnostic Imaging Review Reform Package. I previously led a campaign for a magnetic resonance imaging service for Concord Hospital as well as Medicare funding for these MRI services. I recognised then the importance of access to MRI services to facilitate faster diagnosis of patients as well as early detection of disease. MRI services at Concord Hospital have been of invaluable benefit for the health outcomes of my constituents, and I am very pleased that the minister has announced that our government will be extending Medicare funding to cover the cost of more MRI scans than ever before in both metropolitan and, importantly, regional areas of Australia. Moreover, the package announced by the minister will also help to reduce the cost of MRI services by increasing the bulkbilling incentives for MRI services. I have seen firsthand the importance of access to these services, and I am delighted that these benefits are being extended to even more Australians. Another important issue that I campaigned on in my electorate is quality dental care. I am very pleased that our government will establish a voluntary dental internship program to encourage graduates to expand their skills and work in the public dental system. The increase in the number of graduates will improve the access to much needed dental services. I am very proud to be a member of this Labor government which is delivering for those in our community that need it most. I commend the Treasurer for making the tough decisions without compromising the vital areas of training, education and health. This is a budget that will stand our country in good stead for the future and will allow us to return to surplus by 2012-13. I stress again that we are leading the world in all the OECD countries in terms of the health of our economy. And in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and the dreadful natural disasters that inflicted our country last year and earlier this year, this government is proving once and for all that we are very, very economically responsible and any thought that the Labor Party in federal government cannot manage the economy should be allowed to rest once and for all. We are the envy of the world and it is little wonder so much capital is powering into our country and the value of our dollar is so high. 11:04 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 and comment on the budget, the first budget under the prime ministership of Julia Gillard and the fourth handed down by Treasurer Wayne Swan. For Treasurer Swan this is four budgets, four deficits and no surpluses. The three biggest deficits in the history of the Commonwealth have been under the treasurership of Wayne Swan. This budget was labelled as tough, but it did not go far enough to curb Labor's years of wasteful and reckless spending. The waste that this government has overseen goes right back to 2007. We have seen programs, which may have been started with the best of intentions, that have blown out and not delivered—the school halls, the pink batts and the $900 cheques that went out during the stimulus package. The school halls program has a legacy that is still playing out in my electorate. Indeed, because of some of the poor selection criteria for subcontractors, I have got tradesmen in my electorate who are still owed money under the BER program. I find that most distressing. They believed that when they were undertaking work that was overseen by the Commonwealth government their payment would be safe. At the moment we still have those issues playing out. This government is now looking to implement free set-top boxes for pensioners. This has all the potential to go the same way as the pink batts and the school halls. It is a $308 million program and is valued at $400 per person. A couple of weeks ago I was in a large electrical retailer in Canberra and you could buy a new digital television for less than that. So I think that, once again, while the intention may have been honourable, I believe this is going to get lost in the delivery. Some of the alarming figures to come out of this budget are that the deficit has soared to $49.4 billion and net government debt has climbed to $107 billion. That puts government borrowing at $135 million a day. The interesting part is that the mining tax was mentioned in this year's budget but the carbon tax, which is due to be implemented on the same day, was not. While the intention behind the carbon tax may be to help boost the government's bottom line, it will rip the heart and soul out of Australia, no more so than in the electorate that I represent. Before the previous incarnation of the carbon tax, the emissions trading scheme, Professor Garnaut's report indicated that regional Australia would have an economic downturn of 20 per cent under the implementation of an emissions trading scheme while the cities would have one of eight per cent. The question I would like to ask is: why is regional Australia being asked to pay a large part of the burden for this grand gesture to prove that Australia cares about the environment more than anyone else in the world? The issue here is not whether you believe that the climate is changing and not whether you believe that man's activity has anything to do with it; the issue here is whether what has been proposed is going to have any effect on the climate. It certainly will have an effect in my electorate, which relies a lot on fossil fuel. We have a high freight component for everything that comes and goes, for the goods that we need and for the produce that we produce. We have a high fuel component in the crops that we grow and in the mining sector. Due to the fact that we live in a harsh climate, we rely heavily on energy to keep ourselves cool in summer and warm in winter. I fear what the proposed increases to electricity prices are going to do to the people of my electorate and to the most vulnerable, the pensioners, in my electorate. The Meals on Wheels volunteers were telling me last winter, even before the implementation of the tax, just with the increase in electricity prices so far, that when they were delivering meals to pensioners they were finding many of them in bed at midday, not because they were unwell but because they were frightened to turn on the heater because they worried about the cost of electricity. The other issue is that in some ways it could have the opposite effect. In one small town, Mendooran, the supermarket owner told me that he is paying between $6,000 and $7,000 a quarter for his electricity. If that increases by 20 or 30 per cent and he becomes unviable and cannot keep his doors open, the 400 residents of that village will have no choice but to travel the 70 kilometres each way to Dubbo to purchase their basic requirements. I would think that would have a much larger effect on emissions and a negative effect on the environment. Likewise, the cement plant at Kandos will close within months of this carbon tax being implemented. We will still require cement as one of the basic products that we use for road building and housing construction. We use a lot of cement. That will now be imported from elsewhere in the world. So, while there will be still the same emissions, or possibly a few more if it is going to a Third World country that does not have the same technology we do, the 200 people in Kandos who rely on that plant for employment will no longer have a job. So it is not without some reason that I have trepidation about a budget that has a carbon tax not included but foreshadowed and a mining tax that will also severely impact on the viability of my electorate of Parkes, where mining now is emerging as a large part of the economy. Indeed, I think that the numbers of people now who gain employment from mining are probably similar to those involved in agriculture—it has moved at such a rate. The mining tax also underpins a lot of the promises that have been made to regional Australia for spending, so a lot of these announcements, certainly in the forward estimates of this budget, coming to regional Australia are very much contingent on the mining tax. The one hand giveth and the other taketh away. Certainly that is a great concern to the people that I represent. The other component of this budget is the $1.8 billion flood levy. The great irony of that is that a large part of the Parkes electorate was flooded, maybe not as spectacularly as in some areas of Queensland but certainly with just as much devastation. Fortunately we did not have the loss of life that the people in Queensland had. It was a different flood. We had areas from late November right through till March that were affected by this flooding. While I think that nearly $800 million has been paid out by the government under the Australian government disaster relief program, very little of that has been available to my electorate. I made representations to the Attorney-General and he seemed to understand the case. He put out a press release naming 13 local government areas in the Parkes electorate that would be eligible for the Australian government disaster relief payment. But when those people fronted at Centrelink they were refused. The fine print said that, for them to be affected, the water had to have come from Queensland. I want to know why the water from Queensland is more devastating than the water in the Macquarie Valley, the Cudgegong Valley, the Namoi Valley and indeed the Castlereagh. We had people who were severely isolated. One lady in the village of Quambone has a severely disabled son who was stranded on an electric bed for two days while they had no power. I am not blaming the budget for that; that is what happens, but she has been refused the government disaster relief payment because the water that surrounded Quambone and took out the power did not come in from Queensland. Residents of Goodooga were isolated for a couple of months because of water that came from Queensland; but they were refused payment because they were not deemed 'isolated', because they could walk from house to house—but there are no shops in Goodooga. They were isolated from Lightning Ridge. They had to rely on flood boats and they had to pay high prices for produce that was brought it. I find that quite mean-spirited and it was devastating to these people. But the real kicker with this is that, because they were not eligible for the disaster relief payment, they are not exempt from paying the flood levy. We are not talking huge numbers, but a considerable number of people in my electorate who were severely impacted by the flood, had considerable loss and inconvenience, are now paying a levy to other parts of Australia. I understand that in some suburbs of Brisbane people were eligible for that payment merely because the power was disconnected for a couple of days—and I am not talking about the areas that were impacted by floodwater—but that is an anomaly and something I have been having a battle about since the end of January. It has caused a great degree of resentment and frustration with my constituents. The Prime Minister this week announced that an extra 21,000 university students receiving youth allowance. Once again, students in Mudgee and Dubbo, considered inner regional areas, have missed out. For some reason they were considered not isolated and have not been eligible for the independent youth allowance. Hopefully the inquiry that is being undertaken at the moment will rectify that. Another thing that was mentioned in the budget was the inland rail. I welcome the announcement of $300 million, I think, for the start of acquisition for the corridor for the inland Melbourne to Brisbane rail. It is one of the key pieces of infrastructure that not only will be of benefit to the people of the Parkes electorate but I believe will be of benefit to Australia as a whole. Certainly, the cities of Brisbane and Melbourne will also gain from that. But it was a little concerning yesterday in Senate estimates when Australian Rail Track Corporation representatives said that their priority was still the coastal route from Melbourne to Brisbane through Sydney. I think we need clarification and direction from the minister to the ARTC that the inland rail is a priority and that we should get that project going as soon as possible. Another thing in the budget that is a concern for the people in my electorate are the changes to the fringe benefits tax for work vehicles and the further attempts to implement the private health rebate changes which will force more people onto public hospital waiting lists and away from private practice. A lot of money has been going to regional hospitals in this budget, but I am concerned though about Dubbo base hospital. Dubbo base hospital had an excellent proposal of $57 million. Prior to the state election, the now health minister, the then shadow health minister, Jillian Skinner, promised that New South Wales would increase that by $50 million, on top of the $57 million, to make a worthwhile project for Dubbo. But this government removed $50 million and allocated $7.1 million to the Dubbo hospital. I think that was very short-sighted. It would make perfect sense to do this hospital in one go rather than in lots of little stages. The people of Dubbo were certainly disappointed by that change of heart. Thank you. 11:19 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate on the government's budget bills for 2011-12. These bills will help ensure that the benefits of a strong economy flow to each and every corner of our nation. New programs in the budget will help get more people into work and train them for more rewarding jobs. Just as the government's focus on protecting Australian jobs during the global recession helped to position our economy as the envy of the world, our focus on jobs when times improve will ensure that we maximise our advantages into the future. Unlike the previous Liberal government, this Labor government is not complacent as the sun begins to shine. As former US President John Kennedy said, 'The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.' Most importantly, the appropriation bills show that the government is on track for a surplus in 2012-13—on time as promised. The core of the budget includes a plan to build the more productive workforce our economy needs including a $3 billion training package, new ways to get people into work, and critical new investments in economic infrastructure. Our plan for better schools, hospitals and health care includes a total of $2.2 billion for mental health services and $1.8 billion for regional health facilities, and there is cost-of-living relief for families, investments in a sustainable Australia and new assistance for small business and manufacturers, all while making the difficult decisions necessary to get back into the black by 2012-13, years ahead of the major advanced economies. Through these bills the government is also making significant new investments in my portfolio of human services. The budget backs up the government's agenda to modernise the delivery of public services. In 2011-12 the government is investing $113½ million in service delivery reform. This vital reform program will deliver more one-stop shops, more self-service and more intensive support for people who need it. It will make public services more accessible, more convenient, more efficient and more targeted at the needs of individual Australians and their families. The new budget funding for service delivery reform is the culmination of a process that began when my predecessor, Chris Bowen, announced our plans in this area in December 2009. For customers, service delivery reform will drag the way the government deliver services away from low-tech, inefficient practices into the 21st century. It will provide more one-stop shops, better self-service options and more intensive support, as I said. For our staff, our plans will create more opportunities to work in new and different areas across the portfolio. Staff will be able to go beyond their traditional roles and provide more hands-on assistance to people in real need in ways that cut across traditional silos and responsibilities. For the government, our plans will allow us to deliver services more efficiently and cost effectively by getting rid of unnecessary paperwork, combining back-office functions and refocusing resources on those people who need the most help. Our reforms will free up resources to provide tailored support to people who face multiple complex challenges and entrenched disadvantage. The budget includes $19½ million to extend the successful Local Connections to Work program. In the first seven months of this program there has been a 50 per cent higher job placement rate for job seekers who had been through the service. The new funding will continue to support the program at the nine sites where it is already operating and will allow us to open five new sites a year between 2012-13 and 2014-15. There will be a total of 24 sites around Australia by 30 June 2015. Local Connections to Work provides tailored assistance that caters to the specific needs of disadvantaged job seekers in selected deeply disadvantaged locations. The service brings a range of services together under one roof that job seekers can then access more conveniently. At each site, a range of different service providers are rostered on to deliver services from the Centrelink office. The roster arrangement means that during an appointment a customer will have the opportunity to talk with a number of other services right there on site to provide the assistance they need to overcome their employment barriers. Where a particular service is not available on site, job seekers are helped to connect with that service off site. Job seekers can also have joint meetings with Centrelink and employment service providers. Those meetings can extend to other community partners with the consent of the job seeker to identify their needs and quickly link them to the right support. This closer collaboration between Centrelink and other relevant agencies gives a more holistic view of the job seeker who, in most instances, will only need to tell their story once. Local Connections to Work programs are already operating at nine locations around Australia. The program has been operating in Frankston in Victoria and Campsie in New South Wales since May 2010; in Ipswich, Queensland, and Elizabeth in South Australia since June 2010; in Burnie in Tasmania and Campbelltown in New South Wales since March 2011; in Morwell in Victoria and Port Adelaide in South Australia since April 2011; and in Maroochydore in Queensland since May 2011. The budget also includes funding for 44 case coordination trial sites around Australia. The first 19 case coordination sites will be rolled out in 2011-12, and 10 of those 19 locations are the same locations where the government is making extra investments through the participation agenda. Case coordination under service delivery reform will identify people in need of more intensive support and connect them to appropriate services. In the future, case coordination has the potential to be a far-reaching program and it is a key part of the government's broader agenda to modernise the delivery of public services to Australians and their families. Under the case coordination approach, staff will provide tailored support to people who face complex challenges and entrenched disadvantage rather than simply giving them yet another form to fill out or another telephone number to call. The program will assist job seekers, but importantly will go far deeper than that. It will also support people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, the recently bereaved, people in legal or financial difficulty, carers, people with mental health concerns, people with gambling dependency, and people with drug and alcohol issues. There will be different levels of service to reflect an individual's different level of need. Services will range from simple referrals, such as a training program or information about available services, to intensive support involving multiple coordinated appointments with non-government and local community services. A designated staff member will help customers, including by assisting them in their dealings with multiple government agencies like Centrelink, Medicare and the Australian tax office and giving them information about local services—for example, Alcoholics Anonymous, welfare rights, literacy programs, legal aid, gambling rehabilitation and financial counselling. They might help make appointments and they may be an advocate of behalf of the client with non-government services where necessary. The budget includes a new $28 million investment in more one-stop shops—the co-location agenda. The co-location of Centrelink and Medicare offices into one-stop shops will provide much more convenient and accessible services in one location. The program will significantly improve the way public services are delivered throughout the community. By providing more than 500 new one-stop shops for public services across the nation, we can greatly improve access to those services, particularly for Australians living in rural and regional areas. The new offices will provide better access to Centrelink and Medicare services, from applying for Medicare rebates to making inquiries about family payments, all in one convenient location. That is great news for people in regional and rural areas in particular who may never before have had a Medicare office in their community. Forty-two co-located Centrelink, Medicare and child support offices are already operating successfully, with another 12 to open across Australia by the middle of the year. The budget also includes a $24½ million investment to improve services for Australians in regional and remote areas and for the socially isolated. This new funding will extend the successful mobile office service and will provide many more outreach officers to help people in need. It will make it easier for Australians who live in rural and regional areas, as well as the socially isolated, to access government services and payments. The government's mobile offices made a huge difference during the recent floods, as well as during the drought, and so we are extending this vital service beyond 1 July 2011. Mobile offices bring all of the services provided by Centrelink and Medicare directly to rural and regional communities, loaded into custom-built tractor trailers. In the past these offices were deployed to areas affected by drought, but more recently they were used in Queensland following last summer's natural disasters. Continued funding for the mobile offices and the introduction of a third office in 2014 will benefit up to half a million Australians who live more than 50 kilometres from a Medicare or Centrelink office. I am particularly pleased that the budget includes funding for an additional 20 Centrelink community engagement officers. There are already 90 of these officers working at targeted sites across the country and they do a terrific job. They deliver essential outreach services outside the traditional office setting to people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. They go to boarding houses, drop in centres and other places where people sleep rough to help them claim and maintain income support payments as well as provide referrals to other support programs. The budget also includes extra funding for an additional 13 Centrelink social worker positions. Centrelink social workers provide counselling support and referrals to people caught in difficult personal or family circumstances. Social workers were deployed in large numbers to Queensland earlier this year to assist flood victims and were also sent to New Zealand following the Christchurch earthquake, and even to Japan to assist Australians who were there after the tsunami. Through these significant investments in the government's service delivery reform agenda, taxpayers will also save $130 million over four years through improved information and self-service facilities across the Human Services Portfolio. By reducing paperwork, moving forms online and improving the single portfolio website and phone number we are providing more self-service options for people who want to do business with the portfolio in that way. This will make contacting and accessing the services of Human Services agencies simpler for millions of Australians. That is just a quick snapshot of what we will deliver through service delivery reform. The budget also includes around $280 million for the Human Services Portfolio so that it can play its part in implementing the government's participation agenda. We will be delivering more targeted assistance to help job seekers who are capable of work to find employment. A key component of this package is the $38.2 million investment in a new program, the Community Innovation through Collaboration initiative. The program will encourage local innovation to boost the life skills and work readiness of people with multiple and complex needs. It will be rolled out in the 10 locations around Australia that receive additional assistance through place based programs and support services. The program will ensure that the needs of local communities are addressed with well-resourced, collaborative and effective local solutions rather than a one-size-fits-all program that is controlled from Canberra. Community Innovation through Collaboration comprises two separate measures: a $25 million Local Solutions Fund to help community groups deliver programs to assist local people to get the services they need, and $13.2 million for local service coordinators and community based facilitators to ensure that local services are delivered effectively in ways that benefit local families and individuals. By investing in local solutions the government can better assist local communities to address disadvantage, through tailored initiatives that draw on local expertise. The Local Solutions Fund is a concerted effort to engage with community leaders and not-for-profit agencies, who know better than most about what works and what does not work for Australians and their families in disadvantaged locations we are targeting. The program will give locals a say, making sure that groups that help local people are actively involved in developing and delivering local solutions that address the limitations of existing services. By investing and modernising the delivery of public services as well as new programs to boost workforce participation, the government is ensuring that my portfolio will continue to make a positive difference to the lives of millions of Australians. 11:32 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I welcome the opportunity to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 and its cognate bills. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation, which appropriates the funding sought through yet another Labor budget built on deficit, borrowing and debt. This is a typical Labor budget. We heard the government speak of a budget containing tough decisions but, once again, the government's spin and rhetoric fail to be matched by its actions. We heard the Treasurer say before the budget: … if we are going to be Keynesians in the downturn, we have to be Keynesians on the way up again. The Treasurer said: … being a Keynesian means supporting a counter-cyclical fiscal policy with government making room for the private sector when economic growth is strong. Well, by the Treasurer's own standards, the budget is a complete failure. In the true Labor tradition the budget crowds out the private sector at every opportunity in order to prop up its forecast of a 2012-13 surplus. That will only happen by the government manipulating the figures again next year. Far from making room for the private sector, these bills will increase government competition in the debt market. In November, we were told that net debt would peak at $94 billion. On budget night it was revealed that net debt is now $107 billion, and the government is borrowing $153 million every single day. Each day we have the government out there competing against private enterprise and small business for funding and putting pressure on interest rates paid by small business and homeowners. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 seeks to increase the government's gross debt limit from $200 billion to $250 billion. So, instead of making tough decisions to produce a surplus, instead of cutting back on its spending, the government is simply increasing its debt limit and borrowing more and more taxpayers' money. Any surplus will be illusory as long as the government is paying back the debt. Cumulative interest on Labor's net debt will be more than $26 billion over the next four years. The repayments on government debt will be billions more than any surplus predicted by the government over the next four years. It is a budget built on debt and spending, and small business and householders and families will be the ones who have to pay. The Treasurer does not understand the impact of spending on interest rates. It is basic economics that record government spending and waste will increase the money supply in the economy and inflate prices. The Reserve Bank is given no choice but to increase interest rates to reduce the money supply and to reduce inflation. Interest-rate rises are not only hurting businesses but they are also increasing the cost of living. This government simply does not understand that there are many individuals and families feeling the pressure of cost of living and this budget does very little to help them. Again the government could help with inflationary pressures in the economy by easing spending and reducing government debt and competition in the credit markets. The Treasurer states that the economy is crying out for workers but the reality is that not every sector in the economy is experiencing growth. Businesses operating in slow sectors are raising prices to deal with a combination of reduced returns, increased funding costs and higher interest rates brought about by this government. Labor simply does not understand that the government spending is inflationary and increasing inflationary pressures are adding into the cost of living. Aggregate annual inflation is currently 3.3 per cent, just about the Reserve Bank's target. But the aggregate figure does not give the full picture. According to the Reserve Bank, food prices are inflating by 11.5 per cent annualised. This has been constant over the past six months, well before the natural disasters hit Queensland. Transport costs have inflated in the March quarter by 10.6 per cent annualised, and this is hitting family budgets, workers and small business right across the country. These pressures are being felt strongly in my electorate of Cowper. The electorate I represent is one of the most beautiful in Australia. In a geographical sense, we live in paradise: great beaches, beautiful national parks, a great subtropical climate. But behind the natural beauty of the region there are many North Coast residents struggling to make ends meet. A snapshot of the Cowper electorate provides insight into why this is so. In approximate terms the Cowper electorate has 20,000 age pensioners, 5,000 people receiving carers allowance, 9,000 on the disability support pension and 15,000 receiving Family Tax Benefit A and 11,000 receiving Family Tax Benefit B. Twenty per cent of families have only one parent and 37 per cent of couples have children. For the majority of those people the budget fails the very fundamental test of providing assistance with the increased costs of living. Indeed, the reality is that this budget locks in the Gillard government agenda, which will actually deliver a double-whammy to North Coast residents. In the first instance the budget fails to acknowledge that the rising cost of living is impacting on many low-income families and that their inflationary experience is far greater than the headline figures that are published from the Reserve Bank. Secondly, this government has made it clear that they intend to squeeze household budgets further by introducing a carbon tax. And they will be increasing it afterwards. That is one of the sinister things about this tax, that they will slip it in at a relatively low rate and then they will ramp it up. Watch this space. That will drive up the cost of everything. Last Sunday as I completed my regular grocery shop I started to wonder about the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I often wonder about the Prime Minister and Treasurer, I must say, but going through the aisles at Coles I wondered when was the last time the Prime Minister cruised down to the grocery store and when was the last time the Treasurer cruised down to the grocery store to buy some groceries. I guess the truth is that neither the Treasurer nor the Prime Minister has probably been to the supermarket anytime in the recent past. But the answer to that question really does not matter. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are very much out of touch. If they were in touch with the Australian people then they would not be proposing to introduce this massive new carbon tax. They would be saying, 'We acknowledge the fact that the cost of living is rising rapidly, the fact that people are struggling to pay their mortgage, the fact that utilities are going up virtually every day of the week.' Hardly a day goes by without another headline relating to the increased cost of living. You would think that a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who are in touch with the Australian people would say, 'We mustn't do anything that is going to make this situation worse.' Our policy focus must be that we endeavour to take the pressure off the cost of living to ensure that the government is not out there in the debt market competing with the private sector, driving up interest rates. We should be trying to do that from a policy perspective. But what is the situation? It is exactly the reverse. We are going to impose a carbon tax that is going to drive up the cost of living—drive up the cost of every single thing that you buy—and we are going to tell the Australian people that it is good for them, that we are going to save the planet. I certainly commend Senator Joyce for raising the question: how does imposing a new tax cool the planet? The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have always failed to answer that question, a very important question indeed. The carbon tax is going to make life difficult for the people on the North Coast. It is going to drive up the cost of everything they buy. It will drive up the cost of memberships in sporting clubs. It is going to adversely impact on volunteer organisations that are also struggling to make ends meet through increased electricity bills for Meals on Wheels or whatever other voluntary organisation you care to name. It is interesting that the carbon tax is off budget. It is not included in the budget at this point in time. This is a major tax reform—or we will not even call it a reform; it is a major imposition of a new tax, and it was not included in this year's budget. Another important issue that faces Australia's financial future is how we are going to pay for the NBN and the benefit of the NBN. The budget papers detail that the government will be investing $27.5 billion in NBN Co. to build and operate the NBN. We hear from the government time and time again that the NBN should not be treated as a cost or an expense to government, yet for the NBN to be kept off balance sheet it must provide an internal rate of return above the government bond rate. The government's arrangements for the Commonwealth government business enterprises published by the Department of Finance and Deregulation state: The required return on equity is the risk free rate plus the proportion of market risk premium appropriate to— the enterprise. This means that in order to be kept off the government's balance sheets the NBN must at least generate returns at the risk-free rate, measured as the government bond rate. This is before we consider the market risk premium, a very important point indeed. NBN forecasts a seven per cent internal rate of return which will just keep the project above the current 10-year government bond rate of 5.75 per cent and off the government's balance sheet. But it is becoming clear that the government and NBN Co. do not understand the risks associated with this project and any increased cost will effectively force the expenditure of the NBN onto the balance sheet as rates of return plummet. If our income does not come up to standard and up to the projections and our costs are higher than what is projected—and we already see that with the construction tender process—the IRR will fall. That will quite properly mean that the government's thinly veiled excuse for concealing the NBN from the budget figures will evaporate. It is interesting to note that on 1 April, April Fool's Day, NBN Co. indefinitely suspended their network construction tender because they felt the 14 tenderers were trying to charge too much for construction costs. It was April Fool's Day, and the government still has not woken up. The NBN Co.'s head of corporate services, Kevin Brown, all but accused the 14 tenderers of price gouging when he said: NBN Co does not regard current pricing reflects capacity constraints in the industry, and we are progressing a different approach that we think will produce a better result. We can ask if NBN Co. really thought that the tender submissions were in fact overpriced or whether NBN Co. are constrained by the funding being provided to them by the minister and the Prime Minister, who have no understanding of the costs and the risks in the IT industry. The government cannot increase NBN Co.'s budget because it will lower the internal rate of return for the project and therefore the IRR may ultimately fall below that hurdle rate which would require the project to be included on budget. The taxpayer component of capital expenditure for the NBN was originally $35.7 billion. We can legitimately ask whether the government lowered this amount to $27.5 billion simply because that is what it needed to produce a seven per cent IRR and keep the project off balance sheet so the government could claim a surplus next year. But without an understanding of the risks and an appropriate budget, this project is likely to blow out by billions of dollars. On Tuesday the CEO of one of the 14 tenderers, Leighton Holdings, Mr David Stewart, said the following with regard to NBN Co.'s tender process . It is quite interesting. He said: Some of the things that people are asking us to do are impossible for us to even price. He goes on to say: I think if 14 contractors have come in with prices that seem like gouging, you would have to look at the contract to see what is going in those contracts because I don't think 14 contractors are necessarily missing the point. Mr Stewart continues: Often you find that any new enterprise that is set up as a special purpose vehicle all the experts decide that they can change all the Australian standards, change the contract conditions, change the risk profile and fix up an industry that was probably okay before they started. The government simply does not understand the risks and price pressures in this industry, and we are heading for a financial disaster—one that is being kept out of the budget for strategic reasons and should be of great concern to all Australians. NBN Co. backed by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are changing all the rules and destroying all the competition in order to prop up the internal rate of return. We know competition policy rests on more competitors in the market. It produces a better outcome for consumers. It produces cheaper prices, yet with NBN Co., we are actually legislating for less competition. We are legislating to keep competition out of the market, which can only mean one thing: higher prices for consumers and a lessening in competition in the market. This is a budget that has failed the Australian people. This is a budget that does not pass the test of being responsible. It does not pass the test of a budget that is required to deliver quality outcomes for the Australian people. This is a budget that is certainly not going to result in a surplus in 2012-13 unless we see a little more creative accounting from the Treasurer. (Time expired) 11:47 Mr BRUCE SCOTT YT4 Maranoa I rise in the Main Committee here today on three budget appropriation bills which are being debated concurrently. They include the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 On the night of the budget and leading up to the budget, the Treasurer said that he declared that this was a budget that would deliver to regional Australia like no budget before it. I have got news for the Treasurer, because I do not know where he finds regional Australia but he did not find it in many part of Queensland, including my electorate. I am a representative of regional Australia. I am a representative of the seat of Maranoa and the voice of the people of Maranoa in this place, and Maranoa covers some 40 per cent of the land mass of Queensland. I fail to see how this budget will significantly benefit the people of regional Queensland. For instance, $500 million has been slashed from regional funding, and there is not a single new cent that has been introduced or announced for rail or road projects. We are talking about new money; not rebadged money but new money. The Warrego Highway, for instance, in my electorate starts not far west of Brisbane, near Ipswich. The RACQ believe that it needs an injection of some $380 million just to repair the road, not to upgrade it. This is the highway between the port of Brisbane that goes out into the Surat Basin. I am sure you, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, can appreciate the impact that the resources sector is having on roads in many of our communities. The Landsborough Highway, which I am sure you would also be familiar with: not a single new cent for it. It leaves the Warrego at Morven and goes through to Cloncurry. It is the major highway from southern Australia leading to Darwin through Mount Isa: not a single new cent. The Gore Highway, the Cunningham Highway, the New England Highway in my electorate—all these highways are in the seat of Maranoa. Of course they extend well beyond the boundaries of Maranoa, but they have not received a single cent of new funding in this budget. Sure, some money was announced for flood damage as a result of the natural disasters last year and this year, and I welcome that funding and I acknowledge it. But we need more than just repairs to the roads as result of the flood damage. We need new money to upgrade these very important major highways that link with the Murray-Darling Basin, western Queensland, the Surat Basin—that huge resource area where the roads are under enormous pressure from the trucks and the volume of traffic, which has escalated to a point I would not have imagined in my lifetime—and the strategic roads to the outback. We used to talk about the beef roads many years ago going out to the Channel Country, the remote communities and the pastoral sector—well beyond the major highways. There is no money for those except for flood damage money, which will only repair the flood damage as a result of the recent natural disasters. There are no plans to work on the second range crossing at Toowoomba, and I want to talk about this for a minute. During the natural disaster earlier this year, all the range crossings from my electorate right through to Kingaroy were cut and were out of action—Cunningham's Gap, Murphys Creek, Toowoomba Range, Heifer Creek crossing and D'Aguilar Highway from Blackbutt. All of those highways were cut, and that meant that normal traffic obviously could not move through but also that trucks with goods for those communities could not move through. Fuel comes in in tankers on a just-in-time basis. Food comes into the supermarkets and shops on a just-in-time basis. When I went into my local supermarket during the floods, I could not believe there was no food available. There were some non-essentials but there was no perishable food—milk and the basic essentials of everyday life. It was extraordinary. Why? Food, fresh vegetables, meat and all sorts of perishables come in by road just in time. These goods are being moved all the time on those highways, yet we were cut off from where the transport originates, which is mainly in the markets around Brisbane and the processing sector in the south-east corner. The trucks could not cross the range anywhere from north of Toowoomba and upper Kingaroy through to the border. During the flood natural disaster I thought I had better fill my car with fuel. When I went to the fuel station, I found there was no fuel in town. Why? Once upon a time strategic reserves of fuel were held out in western Queensland at the fuel depots. Those days have long since gone and now fuel comes in almost daily to replenish the service stations. When the Toowoomba range and all the other roads I mentioned were cut, fuel and food could not be transported to our communities. We are so dependent on the road infrastructure and on this just-in-time basis for the delivery of so many essential items. We have to look at these highways and how we can ensure we are not cut off in the future from the delivery of essential items. The second range crossing is therefore critical in the longer term. I believe Queensland was also dudded under the $1.8 billion announced by the government for regional health and hospitals. In the lead-up to the budget, I thought it sounded pretty good. Despite being home to almost a third of Australia's regional population, Queensland received just 12 per cent of the funding. Yet this was a budget for regional Australia. Payments have been massively skewed towards the Independents, who support this minority government. Tasmania, for instance, received some $80 million more than Queensland, despite having a fraction of the population. And this is meant to be a budget for regional Australia? The largest payment was a $240 million boost to the Royal Hobart Hospital in the independent seat of Denison, held by Mr Andrew Wilkie. It just defies logic. There were a few payments to Queensland hospitals, once again, along the coast, but there was nothing for the area west of the Dividing Range for the length of Queensland, north to the Northern Territory border, apart from one for Toowoomba, sitting on top of what we often call the great sandstone curtain. The only money that we did see was, I think, some $4.9 million for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which is certainly welcome, for the upgrade of their bases in Mount Isa and Longreach. But there was nothing like the $1.8 billion, nor the share that should have come to Queensland, going into regional hospitals. We now find out that we are going to lose our Medicare access points. There are 840 Medicare access points across regional, rural and remote Australia. I understand that they will be phased out over the next three years and that 33 of these Medicare booths will be removed from my electorate alone. These are points where people can go with their Medicare claim, put their claim into the booth—it may be a rural transaction centre where local farmers can use the Q-Gap facility—and, within three days, they will have their money in the bank. We are going to lose those services from my electorate and also 840 across Australia. I am told that you can now do it by telephone. I am meeting with Medicare later and I will be very interested in that meeting. I think we have all experienced that frustration, sitting at the end of the telephone, being told: 'Your call is important to us; you have advanced in the queue, so please don't go away.' Then you listen to some beautiful music for another three or four minutes and the same message comes back again. I am very concerned that that is the sort of service we are going to get, which will replace across-the-counter or face-to-face service. Then we have the forgotten families in this budget. This is the first budget in eight years that has not seen a tax cut for families. Labor used to talk about 'working families'. Where are Labor's working families in this budget? We are going to see support for families cut at a time when they are facing tremendous cost-of-living pressures. Since this government came to power, electricity prices have risen by some 51 per cent. Grocery prices are up 14 per cent, and education and health costs are up by about 20 per cent and there have been seven interest rate rises in a row, increasing the average mortgage repayment by some $500 per month. The government is going to strip some $2 billion from families by freezing indexation on key family tax payments and income thresholds for the next three years. Families did not get a tax cut but corporate Australia did. That just defies logic. There is a tax cut for large companies, publicly listed companies, corporate Australia but not families. Then we see the rollout of the digital television switchover. Some $400 will be available to people on pensions and income support, to switch over from analog to digital. Anyone who has been to any electrical store lately will have seen that you can buy a set-top box for up to $40 or $50, not $400. In some cases, you can buy a digital television set for less than $400. Whilst this payment may be well intended, it will be yet another program administered by the government. It reminds me of those insulation batts that burn down houses. It also reminds me of the school halls program, following the global financial crisis, and here we are, in 2011. The Westmar State School had lost its school—it is a small community—because of a fire. I am absolutely frustrated. The P&C are now being asked to put some of their own money into the so-called 'stimulus package' for their local hall. It is going to be a multipurpose hall without walls, apparently. It will have a roof but nothing else. The government is saying, 'We want you to put some of your money in to enclose it.' It is another example of the mismanagement of programs under this government. Not only can they not handle money; they have no idea of how to run a program. Then there is agriculture. Against the backdrop of the huge global food challenges we face over the next 50 years, we have to increase food production, according to the United Nations, by some 70 per cent, yet the Labor Party is cutting support for agriculture across the board. From the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry we got a one-page press release, demonstrating the total lack of interest in agriculture and the important role regional Australia plays, feeding Australians with clean, green food every day. Farmers across Australia feed 60 million mouths every day with their production—not only Australians but a further 40 million outside Australia are dependent on the food we produce. Yet the government has ignored in this budget the agricultural sector. Then they say they are going to bring in a carbon tax. If there is something which will hit every household and every business in Australia it is a carbon tax. Far from assisting, as is suggested in the carbon farming initiative—I spoke about this in the House last night—this carbon tax will drive costs up for our agricultural sector. It will put more pressure on the land and, if this does come to pass, farmers are going to have to produce not only what they have produced in the past but also they will have to pay the flow-on effect of a carbon tax in increased electricity prices and increases in transport costs. The only way farmers can deal with that is to put more stock on the land, putting more pressure on the land, and perhaps not having rotational crops in their arable lands, so that they will have to work the land harder. The net impact of a carbon tax will mean that in some cases farmers will be less competitive if not uncompetitive in the global market. (Time expired) 12:20 Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 Calare As I rise to speak on this year's appropriation legislation, I would preface everything I say by the fact that my No. 1 concern for the electorate of Calare in the 2011-12 budget is securing funding for essential infrastructure—infrastructure which would help progress rural and regional Australia and ensure its prosperity in the future. A Bells Line expressway or just a new serious track over the mountains, a new Lake Rowlands dam and medical school for Charles Sturt University: they were the issues at the top of Calare's priority list. There was not one new funding announcement in the federal budget for Calare. Treasurer Wayne Swan claimed that this budget delivers for regional Australian like no other budget. That is a little hard to equate with a $500 million cut from regional programs. Whatever the new delivery is, it is not in Calare. Labor declared that this was a traditional Labor budget, and they were right—another big deficit, more borrowing and debt and more taxes. Quite obviously, what Labor is offering Calare is a bigger deficit, more borrowings and higher debt. And the borrowings now? This is a great advancement! Over 12 months it has gone from $100 million a day to $135 million a day. I would guess the Treasurer can be very pleased with himself on that line. Regional Australia has been robbed in this budget. There is not one cent of new money for roads and rail. It appears regional development will be contingent on the looming mining tax, a mining tax that would hurt one of the biggest industries in my part of the world that it relies on and the people who work in it rely on. In fact, the flow-through is right through the community. The mining sector has kept Calare's economy strong and it has kept Australia's economy strong. There is a large proportion of the electorate who are employed directly and indirectly by that sector. A tax which threatens these jobs also threatens the entire region. As I say, it flows right through, right down to coffee shops, dress shops, whatever. Take Orange, for example, with the expansion of Newcrest Cadia mines, coalmines such as Centennial Coal, Coalpac near Lithgow and North Parkes mine at the western end of the electorate. The mines invest enormous amounts into the communities. They involve themselves at the community level. They employ local people and keep our businesses thriving. Introduction of a mining tax has the ability to damage entire communities in our part of the world. The other giant hole in Labor's budget is the Gillard-Brown carbon tax. As we heard the member for Maranoa say, instead of ending months of uncertainty around the controversial tax, this government failed to include detail on how the tax will impact on our cost of living and jobs and cannot or will not answer questions in that regard in the House. Let me tell you that a carbon tax will without a doubt seriously hurt my region's business operations. A few weeks ago I had the good fortune to visit the Electrolux factory, which employs over 600 people in Orange. I had not visited it for a couple of years and the tour provided me with a classic example of how the carbon tax can affect not just the obvious industries but the retailing and the whitegoods industry as well. It produces a range of quality fridges and freezers, which are sold both domestically and internationally. Currently the main competition is Korean. Electrolux has worked out that even a very modest carbon tax will add about $10 to a fridge. Now, $10 may not seem much on an $800 fridge but it is not $10 on the cost of a fridge that is the issue. Currently they are running something like $70 or $80 over and above the cost of the Korean competition. This makes them $80 or $90 instead of $70 or $80 over the cost of the competition, which does make a huge difference. It is adding about 15 per cent more to the cost overrun they have across the competition. It is a better article and they are able to deal with that, but they are not able to deal with another 15 per cent differential in that cost. It is a huge issue, especially when it involves 602 jobs in Orange. Lastly, this budget was an opportunity for Labor to invest in regions such as Calare. As my colleague Warren Truss, the member for Wide Bay, noted, what the bush got was lip-service and hollow rhetoric but nothing much in the way of benefits. It certainly got a $500 cut in regional programs. Vital infrastructure, particularly roads and rail, are heavily relied upon in our neck of the woods. The inland rail link was mentioned briefly. However, there was no new money there. The only announcements about that were old hat, and there will be nothing in it for three years anyway. That is only for the paperwork and beginning of planning stages of the project in three years. The devil is really in the detail. All we have seen in the 2011 budget is a series of rehashed and revisited promises. The budget did not reveal anything we do not already know and it certainly did not deliver for Calare. Calls for a decent road or a decent track over the Blue Mountains and water security are two big infrastructure projects we have to have. When I say water security I am not talking agriculture, I am talking urban; I am talking domestic and manufacturing water. Everyone west of the mountains knows the absolute importance of fixing up the access through the Blue Mountains. As far as water security is concerned, the long-term fix to ensure the central west does not again get into the position it was in a year or so ago is to have a new Lake Rowlands dam. Charles Sturt University put forward a proposal requiring $98 million to put in a medical school particularly targeted to bring in people who want to practise in regional and country Australia. It will be somewhat different to what the University of Newcastle does, but the object is to bring in people who will still have to pass the same exams as the most brilliant student has to pass. We all know that training country students is the best way to retain people to practise in our part of the world, and the dental school is a fine example of how to proceed in that direction. The Vice-Chancellor of Charles Sturt University rightfully said: Rural Australians will be disappointed by the government’s failure to put forward critical plans to address severe shortages of GPs in rural Australia. This government had the opportunity to do just that. We all know that we are bringing in many overseas doctors. Something like 50 per cent or more of doctors in rural Australia are overseas doctors, and the only way we are going to address that is to train our own. That has to be accepted; it has to be addressed. It is a huge disappointment. Funding for these projects, along with many others in regional Australia, failed to get a mention. That is ridiculous, especially when we know that the government is spending $50 billion to roll out optic fibre across the nation, much of which could be obsolete within a decade. That kind of money could fund so many things. It could fund so much infrastructure that would be there forever—road and rail through the Blue Mountains or inland. If you think about what $50 billion could fund, it is enormous. I worked out once that the last time Labor ran up a debt, which was $96 billion—and admittedly it took 14 years that time—it took the coalition 10 years to pay it back. This time they have run up around $110 billion in about 2½ years. The interest on the money last time was over $100 billion. How much infrastructure was in that? Infrastructure is needed in Northern Australia. I do not want it all, but we do need it in regional Australia. Agriculture was also largely neglected in this budget. Along with mining it is one of the leading industries, certainly in Calare, and it is also the industry that I am largely responsible for. The government plans to direct an extra 6,000 skilled migrants into regional areas on a short-term basis from 2012. It is too little too late. The NFF has said that there are approximately 80,000 skilled positions to fill in the agriculture sector alone. Regional Australia is in desperate need of these workers, yet agriculture and horticulture have been specifically excluded from the raft of apprenticeships being funded. The farm sector drives over $150 billion a year in economic production and the industry supports 1.6 million Australian jobs, yet Labor has taken another swipe at agriculture, slashing nearly $33 million from its budget. The agriculture budget contains more missed opportunities than dollars. It was a nonevent, and the minister could have managed it from a beach in Bali. Coming into the budget, I suppose we should be thankful, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that they did not put more time into it or he would have taken more money out of it. Opposition members interjecting— Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 I probably should be. Coming into the budget, biosecurity was the one area that the government really needed to focus its energies and concentrate its policy on. However, despite forcing AQIS and Biosecurity to retreat from cutting research and development, Minister Ludwig has again ignored the Beale review—his own government's review, which was put into place back in 2008—and failed to increase their budget. It is a fact that inspections per unit of imports into this country continue to decrease. Labor has also managed to cut $33½ million to the cooperative research centres, meaning that the CRC for National Plant Biosecurity and the Invasive Animals CRC are unlikely to be refunded. I have seen them lately, and they are extraordinarily worried about the funding situation they are in. Our worst fears look increasingly likely as a result of this budget. The government continues to ignore glaring failures in proactively protecting Australia's shores from pests and diseases. The government claimed during the 2010 election campaign that they had a renewed focus on the regions, but the budget does not deliver for the people or industries of our regions. Biosecurity is such a huge issue for us. The federal government ignored myrtle rust, which is really guava rust, and ignored the fact that New South Wales wanted to deal with it. It ignored the fact that Queensland wanted to deal with the Asian honey bee. The minister and the department pretty much walked away from it. We now have myrtle rust not just hooking into nurseries; it is hooking into eucalyptus. Some four to five eucalypt species are now suffering, and it is up into Queensland. It could have been dealt with, but the bureaucrats and the ministry did not want to do so. This is a really serious issue. Biosecurity is a time bomb waiting to blow up. I implore the minister and the government to take it far more seriously. Last year I said that the budget was an opportunity for Labor to invest in our regions. Once again, that has been ignored. My electorate and the farmers of Australia have been left to pick up the pieces. And now we are going to have to pay back a net budget deficit of well over $100 billion once again. 12:17 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise in this place today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 and the other appropriation bills. A short while ago I was quite excited to see that our Acting Prime Minister and Treasurer had decided to spend three days of his Easter holiday in Cairns on a fact-finding mission. I thought, 'Wow, this is a great opportunity for him to have a look at what is clearly one of the economically depressed regions of our country.' Forty-odd per cent of our economy relies on tourism, and we have had everything from floods and pestilence to cyclones—all the disasters you have seen in the media. Some people have decided, just on the basis of what they have seen in the news media, to cancel holidays they had booked to Cairns, even though the actual event might have occurred somewhere in the south-east corner of Queensland, which is probably closer to Melbourne than to Cairns. The impact on our businesses has been quite profound. This is at the end of a couple of years of very, very difficult times in our region. We certainly got no benefit out of the stimulus package, given that governments were hell-bent on making sure that the primary contracts for any of the work that was done were provided to southern based contractors, leaving our own local builders and contractors to pick up the crumbs and putting them into very significant economic difficulties. But I thought, 'This is a great opportunity.' The Treasurer swanned into town, where he stayed in a five-star hotel on his fact-finding mission—and I do not suggest that people should not do that. Afterwards, he left. On budget night I listened to his speech and I really got excited. I thought there was going to be something for our city from this government. Right at the beginning of his speech, he acknowledged that we have a patchwork economy and that it is growing unevenly across the nation. We talk about 'patchwork', but in my region there are gaping black holes. The patches to fill in those holes have not even been manufactured yet! The Treasurer talked about the natural disasters devastating families, cities and towns—and at the height of Yasi and at the start of the floods he could not have been more accurate. I thought this guy has seriously listened. Then he talked about the high dollar and, for the first and only time in his entire budget speech, he mentioned tourism, plus many manufacturing industries and especially small business—again, how true that is. In the last two years in my region, over 400 small businesses have folded and there are a hell of a lot more at the precipice; they are ready to go. He acknowledged that not every region prospers. He did not mention my region specifically but I thought that acknowledgement suggested that he was going to do something about it. He also said that not every health service was as good as it could be, particularly for the mentally ill. Again, I got excited because at the last election he had promised a headspace facility in Cairns. I thought, 'We're going to get that announcement today.' But I was very disappointed. As I sat there and listened to him go through his rhetoric—go through his speech—he never mentioned tourism again. He did say that Cyclone Yasi was going to cost the economy about $9 billion in lost output and reduced real GDP. But then he decided to talk about solutions. He was going to put 50,000 single parents back into the work queues. He was going to get the long-term unemployed and, of course, people with disabilities back to work. I thought to myself, 'This is not quite right'—and he is getting further into the speech. The problem we have up in Cairns is close to 14 per cent unemployment. So we are going to get these guys back into a job; but they are not long-termers. These people lost their jobs last week or the week before. So what is the point of training long-term unemployed people for jobs that do not exist? So I thought maybe we were being sold a bit of pup here. Then he started talking about infrastructure, and I thought 'wow'. Four years ago the government announced $150 million for an overpass on Ray Jones Drive. They had announced it three times over the four years prior to that announcement by Minister Albanese when he was up our way recently. He also confirmed the government's commitment to the region by announcing that a southern based contractor would be doing the work. He made that announcement about a week before the last standing civil constructer, who had employed up to 600 people in Cairns, went into liquidation. They had not even been considered. Then I thought, 'What is he going to announce now?' He said, 'We're going to build the National Broadband Network and invest $36 billion in vital roads, railways and ports, like the Moreton Bay Rail Link in Queensland, the Gateway project in Western Australia, the Western Ring Road upgrade in Victoria and, with the additional funds, duplicate the Pacific Highway.' I thought, 'Anything he's going to say in that speech is not worth a cupful of cold water,' because he did not even mention the Bruce Highway and the fact that in the last 12 months it has been closed close to 200 times because of floods and other issues. There was no commitment there. He did not re-announce the fact that he was still going to build a $150 million overpass on Ray Jones Drive; it has not started yet. I came away feeling very, very disillusioned. I thought to myself: 400 businesses have closed. The CEC Group, with over 34 years of operation, has just shut down. Other businesses are Glenwood Homes, with over 20 years of operation; Winfield's Electrical, with 58 years of operation; CMC Constructions; the Hedley Group; Cocoa Cola; Northpower Electrical; and Smithfield Electrics And today I heard that CityLife magazine announced yesterday that it is intending to close as well. The list goes on and on. I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very, very depressing. Every day people are coming into the office about this. We have had meeting after meeting to try to get our local builders and suppliers involved in the rebuild after Yasi. It is almost impossible to get the government to listen to us. Most of the contracts continue to go to their mates in the southern part of the state, leaving only the subcontractors in our areas to pick up the bits and pieces, which are really not quite enough to keep them alive. We had unemployment of close to 14 per cent. It has dropped recently, but the reason it has dropped recently is because people are leaving town. That is the main reason. People are leaving town or going into part-time employment because full-time employment is not there. So I am pleading with the Treasurer: for goodness sake, whatever you do, do not start training the long-term unemployed or those with disabilities or the single mums. Give the people who lost their jobs today and yesterday an opportunity to get their job first. I recently had a look at what one of our Independents, Mr Windsor, got out of the budget: BAE Flying Systems, $120 million; $20 million for a new medical training facility; $10 million for a Sports Dome in Tamworth; $120 million allocated for the redevelopment of the Tamworth Hospital; and $31.6 million for a regional cancer centre. We have had a community up there that has been raising money now for a number of years to set up a cancer facility. On my side of politics we had committed to build a wellbeing centre for this organisation—not a cent out of this government to support that, and I think that is very, very disappointing when you stop and think about the amount of money and commitment that has been put in by the community to establish this themselves. Yet this government can go down to an Independent and give $31 million to his electorate. We were only looking for $12 million. The members for COUCH that set up this organisation would have to feel very much cheated. We did get $12 million for the continued redevelopment of our public hospital on a site that has to be evacuated every time there is a storm. It is not capable of withstanding storm surges or cyclones so they evacuate the whole hospital and the community is without a hospital. They gave $12 million. I see there is $120 million for the Tamworth Hospital, plus another $20 million for funding for new medical training facilities. In Cairns we were looking to set up the Australian National Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine. The JCU is a wonderful institution and it would have been a great addendum to it as a national institute. But of course they did not see fit to put any money into that either. You have to be very cynical and very sceptical when you talk about commitments by this government in relation to what they are able to do. I go through the election commitments. As I said, there is the $150 million for stage 1 of the Bruce Highway—nothing has happened; $40 million for performing arts—not a cracker has been spent. They got a coordinator in for fly in, fly out jobs for Cairns, but there have been absolutely no direct results from that at this point in time. You have got Cazalys—they are still spending the money, $3 million, on that, and there was another one for remote housing, $4.5 million, which is still to be delivered, and the list goes on There was $9.37 million for the Daintree Rainforest Observatory—it still has not been done. There was a commitment to Headspace, but it still has not been done. There was $3.5 million for development of the rugby league, which still has not been delivered—not a cracker. You have to ask yourself: when are they going to start being serious? I say to the Treasurer that he needs to start being serious. He needs to match his rhetoric with action. Cairns in the far northern region is in desperate need of support. We have people up there who, from 30 June, will be paying an increased Medicare levy, who are expected to support people in the area affected by Cyclone Yasi. Nobody in my region and north of my region can access any support. They cannot access any of the loans or any of the grants because it is just impossible for them to do so. First of all, their buildings may not have been blown away but their businesses certainly were. But because they might have had a dollar in their credit card or they had some level of insurance or they had gone out and got a second job to feed their families, they were automatically disqualified. It is an absolute disgrace that these people continue to desperately need this help and there is nothing available for them. Alan Jones was up recently in our region and started to highlight some of these plights, and I desperately hope that he continues to raise these issues on a national level. Peninsula Development Road was shut down through this event, and none of the businesses up there are entitled to support. Mulley's Market and Fuel, at Coen,and the Exchange Hotel up there have had very little custom since December. The roads have been closed. Again, they are not entitled to support, as are none of the roadhouses up there. Also, the Bloomfield River causeway got washed away. It only opened up a week or so ago, and the Lions Den Hotel on that road, which is totally reliant on traffic coming through, is not entitled to a cracker out of this, as are all the other businesses reliant on that. You have people like Peter and Rosie Johnson, who have a little roadhouse up there, who have been doing it really, really tough. It is just so unfair—and there is nothing at all in this budget. If we want to start fixing the problems, I can start giving a few ideas for the Treasurer to consider. First of all, he can extend the entitlements of the Cyclone Yasi natural disaster area to include businesses affected in the event in Cairns, the Daintree coast, Cooktown and Cape York and review the eligibility criteria so that businesses can access the support. That will make a huge difference. He can also commit to immediately start on the Bruce Highway, not reannounce it in another 12 months, and change his view to allow somebody local, one of our local contractors, to do the job rather than have the job done by southern based contractors. A third thing he could do is make a commitment to establish the seed funding for the sports, performing arts and cultural initiative that will see the development of a tropical campus for the Australian Institute of Sport in Far North Queensland. That will get shovel-ready projects started immediately, get jobs and give opportunities there. The government could also commit to the first stage of the Australian National Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine. They could commit to an all-weather bridge over the Bloomfield crossing. A lagoon for Port Douglas would be wonderful to assist them in revitalising that community, and do not forget the $22 million required to rebuild the sea walls in the outer arm of Torres Strait. And, if they really want to start talking about economic opportunities, they can get rid of that insidious wild rivers legislation that is going to lock up any opportunity for future development in Cape York, along with the proposed blanket World Heritage listing in the area. These are some initiatives that they can consider. These things can be done immediately. They will give opportunities and give hope to our region rather than the absolute, total, blatant disregard that we have seen in our community now for far too long. I call on the Prime Minister and I call on the Treasurer to get up there and start to make things happen rather than continue to talk about it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 0V5 The time allocated to the honourable Chief Opposition Whip has now well and truly expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. ADJOURNMENT 4927 ADJOURNMENT Percival, Mr Greg, OBE 4927 12:33 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur Today I would like to pay tribute to former Campbelltown mayor and state Liberal MP Mr Greg Percival OBE, who passed away on 9 May 2011. I would also like to pay my respects to Greg's wife, Diana; his three children, Virginia, Drew and Susan; and their families, who he loved very much. Since his passing, Greg Percival has been remembered by the Macarthur community as a local treasure, a true statesman, a civic legend and a man of integrity. Greg was a great visionary who played a vital role in the development of Campbelltown and the Macarthur region. To quote last week's edition of the Campbelltown-Macarthur Advertiser: THERE is barely a square metre of Campbelltown in which Greg Percival … did not have a major say. From the location of our council chambers and Wests Tigers' home ground, to the creation of Campbelltown's sister city relationship with Koshigaya, Mr Percival was usually at the engine room. His political heyday stretched from the 1950s to the 1980s but even in retirement he never lost his local passion. In recent times, for example, he backed the successful fight to stop Glenfield's Hurlstone Agricultural High School farm paddocks being sold to developers— by the state Labor government. Greg's political achievements speak for themselves: 31 years as a councillor, two terms as mayor and two as deputy mayor. He was a state member of parliament from 1977 to 1978 and from 1986 to 1988, an executive member of the local government association and the Australia Council of Local Government in the 1960s and 1970s, where he was elected president. Greg devoted a lot of his own time as member of several boards and commissions across New South Wales, including the Sydney Water Board, the NSW planning and environment commission, the Australian council of intergovernmental relations and the Australian constitutional review and convention. Locally, he was a trustee of the Ingleburn Returned Services League and chairman of the Macarthur Country Tourist Association. He was a life member of the Ingleburn Bowling Club and Ingleburn tennis club, president of the Hume area scout association and patron of Campbelltown Rotary, Ingleburn chamber of commerce and the Royal Australian Navy's Fairmile Association. Greg was instrumental in the establishment of and the continued support for the Campbelltown-Koshigaya Sister Cities Association and visited Japan on numerous occasions. He was also awarded the Officer of the Order of the British Empire, OBE, in 1976—a justified tribute in recognition of his contribution to his community. Greg was Campbelltown's longest serving councillor and always stood up for what he believed was right. He never backed away from a fight. It was always an honour to stand beside Greg in the trenches fighting for our community. In his political career, Greg was tough yet passionate and very charming. He was known for his great sense of humour and pride in his community. He was a quiet achiever and everything he did was for others, not for his own political gain. Even in retirement, Greg was well informed about the local community and was often keen to bend my ear about the future of my electorate. I was always very fond of Greg as a person and I am grateful for all the advice he gave me. Even a few months ago when I had lunch with Greg and his wife, Diana, at Macquarie Links golf course, he was keen to bend to my ear about the future of Campbelltown and its surrounds. I always enjoyed spending time with him and listening to his stories about his time on council. I was pleased to see Diana at the Appin Bicentennial Festival last weekend, maintaining the Percival family's strong historical and personal connection to the local community. Greg was ahead of his time when it came to his vision for Macarthur. The significant contributions he made to the city of Campbelltown are something that not only his family but the entire community can certainly be proud of. I believe it would have been appropriate to honour Greg Percival with a state funeral, recognising his status amongst the Macarthur community. I hope all those who choose a life in the political arena, whether at a local, state or federal level, make the same contribution to their communities and are held in the same high esteem as this great man. At the request of Greg's family, I was honoured to say a few words at his funeral and pay tribute to a great man in the company of the member for Fowler, who also spoke. On behalf of the Macarthur community, I would like to publicly acknowledge Greg for the great contribution he made to our community and thank him for his vision which has helped make my electorate what it is today. Greg, this is the only battle I remember you losing. You will always be loved and respected. You will always be remembered. Rest in peace, my good friend. Kingston Electorate: South Australia Innovation and Investment Fund 4928 12:38 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I am pleased to speak about a very important event that happened in my electorate last week. It was a pleasure to join Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, as well as the state Minister for Industry and Trade, Tom Koutsantonis, in my electorate at SMR Automotive in Lonsdale. The reason everyone got together was to launch the third round of successful companies to receive money through the SA Innovation and Investment Fund, set up by both the state and the federal government in response to the collapse and the closure of Mitsubishi in 2008. The closure of Mitsubishi, the manufacturing plant near my electorate, was a significant blow to jobs and manufacturing in the local area. However, as result of this fund, through the proactive investment by the federal and state governments, we have seen a blossoming of manufacturing businesses in my local area. The money from the SA Innovation and Investment Fund has helped to allow these innovative manufacturing businesses to expand. Three manufacturing businesses in my local community are set in this round to benefit from close to $2½ million. The important funds will provide local industry with a much-needed boost to commit an expansion with a particular focus in this round of projects on the renewable energy sector's manufacturing and engineering to create jobs in the local area. Lonsdale-based manufacturing companies Redarc Electronics, Robin Johnson Engineering and SMR Automotive Australia will be able to use their funding to expand and diversify, creating new jobs for locals in southern Adelaide. Talking to these businesses, you hear about some of the really innovative local manufacturing cutting-edge technology that they are not only taking up but developing, putting southern Adelaide at the forefront of advanced manufacturing. This is the future for manufacturing in Australia. We often hear that manufacturing is not expanding but I do believe that manufacturing has a bright future in this country and that it is companies such as these that will take manufacturing to the next level with innovative cutting-edge technology. I will talk about SMR Automotive, one of the recipients announced last Thursday. This company develops, produces and distributes exterior mirrors, blind spot detection systems and a wide range of automotive components. The company has 22 per cent of the global market share in production of exterior mirrors for passenger cars, commercial vehicles and heavy trucks. It is one of the leading experts for camera based sensing systems in the automotive industry. One of the particular products it has developed—I do not want to give any intellectual property away but, as they said at the launch, it is very difficult just from the description to be able to actually replicate this. They have been able to manufacture very high quality plastic exterior mirrors for cars, and they are the first to do it in the world at this quality and standard. This reduces the weight of the car. Every component in a car adds to the burden that the user has on fuel, so there is a real focus on moving away from heavy vehicles to lighter ones. This innovative idea will reduce the total weight of the car. SMR did not develop this on their own; they have excellent strategic partnerships with a number of research institutions such as the University of Wollongong, the University of South Australia and Flinders University, all contributing in a really exciting initiative to take that idea and turn it into a commercial proposition that will supply the world. That is a real success story. In addition we had Redarc Electronics with over 30 years experience in research, design and development, and manufacture of a range of electronic voltage converters and associated products. I have been off to visit them and that has been very interesting. They are expanding, putting more and more employees on. I think they said they had around 50 or 60 employees now, a really exciting proposition. Robin Johnson Engineering will expand the Lonsdale Park facility to establish a high-volume, innovative turnkey manufacturing plant to produce transportable switch rooms, smart electricals and advanced technology. (Time expired) Youth Allowance 4930 12:43 Mr SCHULTZ 83Q Hume I rise to speak on the appalling treatment of regional students and their families by Labor over the last year and a half. The coalition has been fighting tooth and nail to reverse a disgraceful decision by the then Minister for Education and now Prime Minister to cut assistance for rural students under the Independent Youth Allowance Scheme. Regrettably, I was on leave from the House at the beginning of this year, which prevented me from speaking on the importance of the work done by the Liberal led coalition members and senators in the coalition, particularly the member for Forrest, in trying to talk this government back into common sense and decency on this issue. The Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010, introduced by the Abbott led coalition, aimed at reinstating $370 million worth of financial assistance stripped from the rural students by Labor when Julia Gillard was Minister for Education. As a rural member of parliament at both state and federal level for the past 23 years, I am totally dismayed by the government's disgraceful attempts to advise the Governor-General to scrap the bill proposed by the Abbott led coalition. The government is trying to block the coalition's moves at every turn to get back the funding rural students desperately need. Students who cannot access youth allowance in the inner regions are going to be the big losers if the government persists with these appalling tactics. At the beginning of this year I gathered 500 signatures of hardworking families and students from across the Hume electorate in support of the coalition's petition to reinstate the financial support rural students desperately need to help them get through their tertiary education. During the period that I was running the petition and gathering signatures I was being told stories such as the one from a family in Goulburn whose son was adversely affected by the changes introduced in July last year: With the current situation our son is not eligible for any financial assistance at all. As we live in Goulburn and he is studying in Canberra he will need to live there, as his course convener has told him he will need to be there five days a week. Rent is quite expensive in the ACT … I know that; my rent has just gone up $60 a night. They continued: Unless he works for a further 30 hours a week for four months longer he does not qualify for youth allowance. He has earned more than $13,010 in the financial year so we cannot claim him to be dependent on us. He will turn 20 years old in May and feels he should not have to wait any longer to commence his course of study. We agree with this. The present legislation is discouraging the youth of Australia from seeking further education, and placing extra financial burdens on families. Students and families planned their tertiary education, deferment, financial savings and choice of university all in good faith, reliant on the government's criteria prior to the 1 July 2010 changes. The government scrapped the criteria during the very period that students and families were halfway through their attempt to meet the work and earning-capacity criteria. This decision is an astounding breach of faith, yet typical of a government which people know they can no longer trust or take at their word. As I have said for a long time: do not look at what Labor says; look at what they do. Because of this government ineptitude, we now run the risk of having regional students turn away from continuing their student careers at university. This would be a tragedy not only for rural and regional Australia but for all Australians. Building the Education Revolution Program 4931 12:47 Mrs D'ATH HVN Petrie I rise to talk about the nine Building the Education Revolution openings that I have done in schools in my local electorate since the start of April. It has been a very busy six weeks for these schools. The construction work for many of them was to be completed over Christmas, but some of those works were delayed because of the heavy rains and floods in Queensland. Others have spent the first term basically settling into their new facilities: putting the books into the new library, setting up the resource centre, putting in the finishes to the hall and landscaping around it. It is great that so many schools have now got these facilities up and operational. Just last Sunday Grace Lutheran Primary School had an opening for their new library, the refurbishment of their classrooms and their new playground, but it is inaccurate to say that it was just in relation to those buildings. The school chose to use their BER funding and their National School Pride funding in conjunction with a block grant authority to rebuild the school basically from the ground up. It is incredible. Every classroom is new; there is a new tuckshop, a new library, new computer facilities and a new playground. It is just incredible and it is great to see what has been done. They chose to do the opening as part of their open day to showcase their school to the broader community. It was also their 40th anniversary, and Grace pioneers—people who were instrumental in starting the school 40 years ago—came back for the opening. We also opened Norris Road State School's hall. They had a hall; we have extended the hall and put on multipurpose rooms and a new kitchen. This has made the hall much more versatile. We know that the hall is used by a lot of community groups, and this will allow those groups to use the hall for many more purposes. They have a completely refurbished library and new resource centre with an outdoor learning area. It is incredible to see the space they have now. But what is so important for the school is that they have a dedicated area for their computers as well. Deception Bay North State School has a brand-new hall and resource centre, incredible facilities. This school has already, in just one term, connected with the community. It has Indigenous programs running in the evening and dance classes. It has Mission Australia operating full time within one of the break-out rooms in the hall, helping and supporting the families of that school, which is just incredible. Aspley Special School has a brand-new hall. Redcliffe Special School has a new hall and resource centre. These kids used to sit on asphalt underneath a brick building, and they now have amazing facilities indoors, where they can do their assemblies, play sport and do so many other things. Hercules Road State School has a new multipurpose hall to play sport in. Importantly, after-school care is now happening for the first time at this school because of these facilities. There is a brand-new library, which meant the old library could become the new admin block, so the staff have more space, and the old admin block has become the new special education unit. We forget that, because of the creation of a new building, everything expands and there are whole new places that they can use in the school. St Joseph's Catholic Primary School has a brand-new multipurpose hall and also a refurbished library. Deception Bay Flexible Learning Centre is doing amazing things with those of our kids who have been disengaged from the main school system. A lot of them are young parents, and they have a parenting program going in. They have a great creche inside the flexible learning centre where the parents can leave their babies, and they can go and get their education. The work that this school is doing is incredible. At Deception Bay State High School, we have just opened their brand-new language centre—their Japanese language centre. What is great about this is that this high school is partnering with primary schools, and primary school kids are coming in and learning Japanese in this new language centre, which includes a kitchen where they are preparing Japanese food and everything else. The work that has been done here is just incredible. In the time I have left, I congratulate the principals, the P&Cs and the P&Fs for the great work that they did planning this and their ongoing work for fundraising. Builders, architects and project managers have done a fantastic job on these projects. They deserve to be acknowledged and thanked for their great work. Every school is thrilled with these facilities. Southern Moreton Bay Islands 4932 12:52 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman The stunning Southern Moreton Bay Islands are truly a series of jewels in Moreton Bay, and it is a unique honour for me to represent these populations, which are on some of the few subtropical islands in the world where residents can commute over water every day to a major capital city. Of course, that brings with it extraordinary challenges with having to catch water taxis and vehicle barges, sometimes more than once a day. Particularly in the context of non-subsidised transport for those who do not have concession cards, it represents a significant added burden on the cost of living for those residents. So obviously this engages the mind of everyone who represents that part of the world, at all three levels of government. It obviously throws our minds back to the 1970s, when these islands were, with very little research and thinking, subdivided without any undertaking for infrastructure charges to be extracted from those who developed and sold off the land. Today we are reaping the consequences of those short-sighted decisions of the 1970s. So, without casting any blame, there is a need for a solution, and most would understand that the revenue model of local government is such that those sorts of challenges simply cannot be overcome by being passed to council alone; it will require state and federal government to work together. Of course, islanders also face a unique predicament in addition to that wonderful quality of life. People say that, if you move to an island, you choose to take on a certain level of isolation and, with it, fewer services. But there comes a point where Australian citizens should be able to say, 'I can reasonably access a doctor; I can reasonably access food and essentials on that island without either undue risks or enormous expense to obtain them.' Seniors, predominantly, who find themselves on the island and young families who find that there are not adequate facilities for their children are completely right to be asking for solutions to those challenges. Right now the key problem is parking. Anyone on those islands will tell you that the plans being considered by Redland City Council to charge for parking present an extraordinary financial challenge to families that are feeling the greatest pressure of all. You have only to visit South-East Queensland to know about those cost-of-living pressures. The challenge is faced by the council to come up with solutions through a consultancy with GHD, but the solution is really the job of the state and federal governments. I call on the council to engage those two levels of government to work towards a sustainable solution. Parking for 2,400 cars will never be easy along a foreshore in Redland Bay. The option of multistory parking is extremely expensive and it is difficult to justify that revenue model. From the 'Our Parking Spot' group, I want to acknowledge Stuart Sommerlan, Ellen Ulrich, Gay James, Clair Molloy, Val Marsden, Lorraine Taylor, Joanna and Lindsay Hackett and Gayle Nemeth—the Aussie whip-maker—who have worked together to staff a tent embassy 24 hours a days, seven days a week outside Redland City Council. This is a fantastic example of people power. This small island community—in many cases, out of sight, out of mind—of South-East Queensland residents were able to effectively stake out the council until it committed to doing the transport studies that the 'Our Parking Spot' group called for and to providing the car parks. Council cannot do it alone—I emphasise that. But it is so important for council to not just pay lip-service and just talk about consultation but engage. There are many other groups on the island as well who are asking for the very same thing, such as Lee Shipley and his colleagues who are looking at new and novel ferry and water taxi solutions around Moreton Bay. The islanders are here to stay. The islands are jewels in Moreton Bay. We have a chance to optimise so many things about services to those islands. It will take a little forethought and some future planning, but for now it is the Redland City Council that must rise to the challenge. Six thousand signatures from locals, most of them mainlanders, have said, 'Though we do not live on the islands we can understand the needs.' We know it is an ageing population. We know there are small kids who must finish school and transition to a trade and a career. We know from St Vincent de Paul studies that this area faces significant socioeconomic challenges. As the federal member, I will not lose sight of that. We will work. We know there is no easy and simple solutions. I sympathise with the council in that regard. At yesterday's general meeting, I know the mayor passed a mayoral minute confirming that parking charges will not spread throughout the length and breadth of Redland Bay but that they still are looking at options around Weinam Creek. I put my support fully behind the residents of the islands who are asking for nothing more than an affordable solution. If that ultimately means incorporating travel on the bay into South-East Queensland's TransLink arrangements so that travelling on water is simply another zone of public transport then that will be a very important advance. Access to parking for all islanders both secure and non-secure is also important. Chifley Electorate: National Green Jobs Corps 4933 12:57 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Having lived in Western Sydney nearly all my life, it has been amazing to see how the place has changed. The pace of development has been incredible. Paddocks have been transformed into housing estates in what it feels like the blink of an eye. While bricks and mortar have spread rapidly in Western Sydney, residents in my neck of the woods also recognise the value of maintaining green space within the built space. Reflecting this, state governments and councils, to their credit, have been keen to establish more parkland out our way, and the Western Sydney parkland stands as a terrific example of this. But we need people to help maintain and protect these green spaces. I recently attended a graduation ceremony for one of the National Green Jobs Corps projects in my area, and I met 14 young people who were not only impressive but inspiring. Most of them were early school leavers, who used the opportunity provided by the program to acquire skills and pursue options they never thought they would have. The National Green Jobs Corps is a 26-week training and work experience program, delivering 10,000 places over two years for eligible Australians aged from 17 to 24 and costing around $80 million. Participants undertake work experience and skills development on environmental projects, with 130 hours of this training leading to a nationally recognised qualification in horticulture or conservation and land management, helping them get ready for deployment in emerging green and climate change industries. The projects are focused on conservation, protection and rejuvenation of natural environment and cultural heritage. There are nine job and training providers nationally and over 120 projects across Australia, including water testing, bush regeneration, planting, surveying, track repairs and construction. The project recently completed in our area was titled Fixing the Hawkesbury: The Three R's—Restoration, Rivers and Revegetation, with the participants working on various sites around the Hawkesbury and Whalan areas. They undertook activities including the protection of a rare orchid and Aboriginal sites, which included engaging with schoolchildren in developing interpretive materials; restoration and protection of creek banks, waterways and fish habitats; monitoring water quality and flow with University of Western Sydney staff, Streamwatch and local volunteers; woody weed control; collecting seed; developing plant stock; and walking track and signage construction. There is a saying that sometimes the journey is more important than the destination, and I think that is very true. Many of the young people involved in this particular project, with the discipline and dedication required to complete the project, will be empowered to embark on another journey with different dimensions: those of a skilled student, responsible adult and contributing citizen. I promised that I would refer to their achievements in our nation's parliament, and today I enthusiastically fulfil my commitment to them. Congratulations go to Aaron Albert, David Benington, Chris Borg, Bradley Bush, Chris Cameron, Shalom Fepoleai, Joseph Piggot, Sean Richmond, Luke Thompson and Tiffany Williams, who all received statements of attainment from the Certificate II in Conservation and Land Management. Daniel Cacation, Edison Lasuma and James Wood all completed the full Certificate II in Conservation and Land Management. One of the successful graduates recounted to me how he got involved in the program. He said: 'The reason I wanted to go into the program was simple. I was at a job provider's premises. I saw a brochure that was green. I turned it over. It talked about this program, and I knew this was what I wanted to do.' So he followed it up, he stuck with the program and—from memory—he is going to be engaged in horticulture in a major Western Sydney council, Hawkesbury City Council. I remember the enthusiasm on his face and that of his mates and the fact that he said: 'I didn't want to go into a warehouse; it wasn't for me. I didn't want to go into logistics or transport. I wanted to do something with my hands, but outside and feeling like I was making a contribution to the environment.' This is what I loved about the time I spent with the graduates: seeing the confidence and the excitement in their eyes as a result of completing the program and being connected with the community and the environment. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate them, to remark on the impression they left on me and to celebrate their achievements. They deserve recognition for their hard work and their contributions to their local community. The environmental restoration and regeneration works they undertook will serve as a long-lasting testament to their community and their personal success. Question agreed to. M ain Committee adjourned at 13:03 .   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 4936 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Telstra: Fibre Access Network (Question No. 287) 4936 287 Mr Fletcher L6B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 21 March 2011: (1) How many kilometres of fibre access network does Telstra presently own. (2) Under the proposed Telstra-NBN Co. Limited agreement, how much of the existing fibre access network will be: (a) retained and operated by Telstra; (b) transferred to NBN Co. Limited's ownership and control; and (c) destroyed. Mr Albanese R36 The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The government does not maintain this information. The details are held by private operators. (2) (a) (b) (c) This information is subject of confidential negotiations and is yet to be finalised. Universal Service Obligation (Question No. 288) 4936 288 Mr Fletcher L6B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 21 March 2011: In respect of the new proposed arrangements for the Universal Service Obligation (USO), (a) what sum of money will customers be charged for a voice telephone service, and (b) will the amount of money charged for a voice telephone service be the same in those parts of the country where the USO is to be provided over the (i) existing Telstra copper network (that is, rural and remote areas), and (ii) new fibre to the home network. Mr Albanese R36 The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Retail price controls currently apply to certain fixed line services provided by Telstra, including to standard telephone services supplied by Telstra in fulfilment of its USO obligations as the Primary Universal Service Provider (PUSP). The current Telstra retail price controls expire on 30 June 2012. The Government has indicated that it will undertake a comprehensive review of pricing policy in 2011. (b) Refer response to question (a) above. Broadband (Question No. 289) 4936 289 Mr Fletcher L6B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 21 March 2011: In respect of NBN Co Limited's business case, what assumptions has the company made about the (a) Proportion of homes which are rented as opposed to owned; and (b) Likely connection rate of the National Broadband Network in: (i) Rental homes, and (ii) Owner-occupied homes. Mr Albanese R36 The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The NBN Co Corporate Plan 2011-2013 and business case assumptions do not distinguish between premises which are rented or owned. (b) (i) and (ii) The NBN Co Corporate Plan 2011-2013 and business case assumptions relating to likely connection rates are informed by trends relating to fixed line services, rather than rental or ownership of residential premises. Quality of broadband access is an increasingly important criteria for selection of a residence and NBN Co expects owners will value the benefits of an installation of a fibre service and ensure connection to avoid compromising a property's attractiveness to future tenants or buyers. Broadband (Question No. 290) 4937 290 Mr Fletcher L6B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 21 March 2011: In respect of potential street cabinets and fibre splitters to be constructed by NBN Co Limited as part of its network rollout (a) will the architecture of the National Broadband Network require external street cabinets to be installed to house fibre splitters; (b) what is the typical number of households to be served from an individual fibre splitter; and (c) how many street cabinets containing fibre splitters will be required to be installed around Australia. Mr Albanese R36 The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Yes, the architecture of the National Broadband Network will require installation of external street cabinets referred to as Fibre Distribution Hubs. (b) The number of end users to be served from an individual fibre splitter is consistent with Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON) capability. NBN Co has developed engineering rules that result in a GPON being shared by a maximum of 32 end users. NBN Co expects the practical average across the fibre footprint to be around 28 end users per GPON. Refer to Question HQIW178 (a). (c) NBN Co Limited anticipates that 55,000 external street cabinets or Fibre Distribution Hubs will be required to be installed around Australia. Universal Service Obligation (Question No. 292) 4937 292 Mr Fletcher L6B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 21 March 2011: In respect of the new arrangements that are proposed for the Universal Service Obligation, (a) is it a fact that customers outside the 93rd percentile will continue to receive the 'standard telephone service' (their entitlement under the universal service arrangement) over Telstra's copper network; if so, does this mean that the Telstra copper network will continue to operate in many rural and remote areas of the country (the 'residual rural network'), (b) given that today the rural and remote part of the network is cross-subsidised by the metropolitan network, what are the implications of removing this cross subsidy for the cost of operating the residual rural network, and (c) how will the (i) per customer cost of the residual rural network compare with that of today's national copper network, and (ii) cost of operation of the residual rural network be met. Mr Albanese R36 The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Government's 20 June 2010 policy statement1 outlined a new institutional, regulatory and funding framework for the delivery of USO and other public interest services. This includes the establishment from 1 July 2012, of a new entity, provisionally called USO Co, which will take on responsibility for delivery of universal service outcomes and other telecommunications public interest services. As part of USO Co arrangements, customers outside NBN Co's fibre footprint that have access to Telstra's copper network will continue to be able to receive a standard telephone service over that network if they wish. (b) Changes to Telstra's net costs of meeting the USO over its copper network outside NBN fibre areas is one of the considerations that are part of the contractual negotiations between it and the Commonwealth on the delivery of the USO.(c)    (i) Compared with the current costs of Telstra's copper network, it is anticipated that the per customer cost of Telstra's copper network will continue to vary over time subject to a number of factors including the network footprint and the number of services in operation. (ii) Under the proposed USO Agreement, Telstra will receive payments from USO Co that will go towards meeting the net costs of meeting the USO. As is currently the case, Telstra will also obtain payments from its customers for provision of USO services. 1 www.dbcde.gov.au/broadband/national_broadband_network/nbn_policy_statements#uso Broadband (Question No. 293) 4938 293 Mr Fletcher L6B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 21 March 2011: (1) When was the decision made by the Government, announced on 7 April 2009, to replace its fibre to the node policy with a fibre to the home policy. (2) In arriving at the decision in part (1), what advice (a) did the Government receive on the applications which could not be delivered over a 12 Mbps network but could be delivered over a 100 Mbps network, (b) was sought and received from people with experience in the sales and marketing of telecommunications and broadband services, and (c) did the Government receive on the revenues which could be captured from the delivery of any applications which could not be captured from applications delivered over a 12 Mbps network; and what were those applications, what would customers pay for them, and how many customers would take them up. (3) Prior to the Government making the decision in part (1), what specific commitments were obtained from the Commonwealth's various departments and agencies to deliver additional services and applications for the 100 Mbps network (as distinct from those previously planned for delivering the 12 Mbps fibre to the node network). Mr Albanese R36 The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) 7 April 2009. (2) (a), (b) Over the course of the National Broadband Network (NBN) Request for Proposals (RFP) process and in developing its fibre to the premises (FTTP) policy, the Government received extensive advice on a broad range of issues relating to the capacity, marketing and viability of broadband networks in delivering broadband applications. The Government extensively tested the market through the NBN RFP process. It drew on advice from the Panel of Experts, specialist economic, commercial and technical advisers appointed to assist the NBN Taskforce and the Panel (Frontier Economics, KPMG and Gibson Quai AAS) who have extensive expertise in the telecommunications market, the ACCC, relevant government agencies, advice contained in research reports and provided through public consultation processes. (c) Preliminary cost estimates were developed using a range of available information and assumptions were analysed, as part of the Government's decision making process. Further financial modeling was conducted in the course of the NBN Implementation Study. (3) No specific commitments were obtained from Commonwealth departments and agencies in relation to the delivery of additional services and applications for the 100 Mbps National Broadband Network. Broadband (Question No. 294) 4939 294 Mr Fletcher L6B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 21 March 2011: In respect of the decision made by the Government, announced on 7 April 2009, to replace its fibre to the node policy with a fibre to the home policy, when it was claimed that the Government 'acted on the advice of an expert panel, containing within it the Secretary of the Treasury, expert advice also from the ACCC about this thing being the right way to go', is it a fact that on 18 May 2009 a member of the expert panel, Prof Rod Tucker, said 'I just want to make one thing clear: the panel of experts was never asked to and didn't make any judgement call on the issue of investment for a fibre to the home network.'; if so, is Prof Tucker's statement accurate; if so what advice did the Government base its decision upon. Mr Albanese R36 The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Panel of Experts was appointed by the Government in April 2008 to assess proposals received by the Commonwealth in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) to rollout and operate a National Broadband Network for Australia and provide a report to the Minister. Following an extensive assessment process, the Panel of Experts advised the Government that none of the national proposals offered value for money. Instead, the Panel of Experts encouraged the government to invest in fibre technology, supplemented by next-generation wireless and satellite technologies, however, it did not consider costings for such a network. Preliminary costing was carried out by government agencies, drawing on advice from a range of sources including technical advisers who have extensive expertise in the telecommunications market. Detailed costing was undertaken in the course of the NBN Implementation Study. Bradfield Electorate: Post Offices (Question No. 321) 4939 321 Mr Fletcher L6B asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 24 March 2011: In light of the recent decision by Australia Post to close Turramurra Post Office in the electorate of Bradfield, what assurance can the Minister provide that Australia Post has no plans to close any further Post Offices in the Bradfield electorate. Mr Albanese R36 The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Australia Post constantly monitors its network of more than 4,000 outlets for changes to customer numbers, local community/business needs and leasing agreements to ensure the network matches demand. (2) There are no definitive plans at this stage to close any outlets in the electorate of Bradfield. Australia Post understands the importance of ensuring that communities have access to local postal services and commits to keeping customers and all other stakeholders fully informed when it is considering any changes.