2013-06-20 43 1 9 House of Reps 0 0

Thursday, 20 June 2013

The SPEAKER ( Ms Anna Burke ) took the chair at 9:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 6437 COMMITTEES DisabilityCare Australia Committee 6437 Membership 6437 09:01 The SPEAKER 83S I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senators Fifield and McKenzie have been appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on DisabilityCare Australia. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 6437 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Defence 6437 09:01 Mr STEPHEN SMITH 5V5 Perth by leave—The government is committed to providing regular reports and updates on its response to allegations of sexual and other forms of abuse in Defence, including to the parliament. In April 2011, in the aftermath of the so-called ADFA Skype incident, I announced a range of reviews into aspects of the culture within both the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) and the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to address ongoing concern in relation to failure to meet appropriate standards of conduct. The cultural reviews included the use of alcohol in the ADF, personal conduct of ADF personnel, the use of social media in Defence, employment pathways for Australian Public Service women in Defence and the management of incidents and complaints in Defence. The reviews assessed the good work that had been done to date in these areas and examined what further improvements could be made. In addition to the reviews into aspects of defence culture, I also announced at that time two significant reviews into the treatment of women at ADFA and in the ADF generally, to be conducted by the federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Elizabeth Broderick, on behalf of the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the DLA Piper Review of Allegations of Sexual and Other Abuse in Defence. On 11 April 2011, I also announced that the Chief of the Defence Force would bring forward for implementation by the government the opening up of all roles in the ADF to women on the basis that determination for suitability for roles in the ADF is to be based on their ability to perform in the role, not gender. In September 2011 the government announced it had formally agreed to the removal of gender restrictions from ADF combat roles. Defence's comprehensive response to the cultural reviews, the March 2012 Pathway to change document, outlines how the recommendations of the various cultural reviews will be implemented consistent with the wider Defence reform program. Pathway to change sets out the requirement that Defence personnel demonstrate exemplary behaviour commensurate with the nation's expectations, in and out of uniform, on and off duty, and how the Defence leadership will require these standards are met. It states that Australia rightly expects that Defence will deliver to consistently high standards, including in everyday personal behaviour and in how personnel treat their colleagues. This requirement was again underlined by the formal statement by the Defence leadership in October 2012 in response to the Broderick review into the treatment of women in the ADF, which stated that every sexual offender and harasser will be held to account together with leaders who fail to appropriately address such behaviour. As the Defence leadership stated on that occasion, when the government and Defence adopted all of the recommendations of the Broderick reviews, these standards are not open to negotiation. The failure to meet the standards required of Pathway to change and the Broderick reviews was sadly demonstrated by the appalling revelations last week by the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Morrison, in relation to an ongoing investigation by the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service (ADFIS), in cooperation with the New South Wales Police, into the actions of a group of officers and noncommissioned officers of the Australian Army. The matters under investigation are serious and centre on the production and distribution of highly inappropriate material demeaning women across both the Defence computer systems and the public internet. Three already suspended Army members are the subject of an ongoing investigation by New South Wales Police. The Chief of Army has initiated action to consider the suspension of another five members who are the subject of a parallel ADFIS investigation into a number of alleged service offences. Pending the outcome of the ongoing ADFIS investigation, the Army may consider further suspension decisions against nine others if the circumstances warrant. ADFIS is also investigating a further 90 individuals who have been identified as peripheral to the group's email exchanges. The government strongly supports the actions taken by the Chief of Army. Lieutenant General Morrison has unambiguously reinforced his expectations of appropriate behaviour and demonstrated his resolve to act decisively in response to such despicable incidents. Incidents such as these do significant reputational damage to the good work of the vast majority of the Australian Defence Force and are symptomatic of a systemic cultural problem within Defence. For two reasons this is a different case of inappropriate behaviour to that of the ADFA Skype incident. First, this situation does not involve young men with weeks in the Defence Force. It involves commissioned and noncommissioned officers who have been in the Army for years. Second, the response on this occasion has been qualitatively different and significantly better than the response in the ADFA Skype incident. The response to the ADFA Skype incident was wanting and led directly to the reviews I have referred to, as well as the DLA Piper Review of Allegations of Sexual and Other Abuse in Defence. In contrast to the response to the ADFA Skype incident, the government strongly supports the robust response that demonstrates in the post-ADFA Skype environment the zero tolerance of Defence leadership for failure to meet appropriate standards. General Morrison has unambiguously demonstrated the standard set by the Chief of the Defence Force, the Secretary of the Department of Defence, the Vice Chief of the Defence Force and the Service Chiefs for the Defence leadership's zero tolerance response to inappropriate conduct. General Morrison has set the benchmark for future zero tolerance responses to inappropriate conduct. The Defence leadership is absolutely committed to pursuing the reforms necessary to ensure zero tolerance of inappropriate conduct. On 26 November 2012 I announced the government's response to the Report of the DLA Piper review into allegations of sexual or other abuse in Defence and on 14 March 2013 I presented to the House the first interim report of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce. Today I provide an update to the parliament on the government's response to the DLA Piper review and the work of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce, chaired by the Honourable Len Roberts-Smith RFD, QC. As well I will table the task force's second interim report. As the report outlines, the task force is continuing to gather material and assess both information provided to DLA Piper during its review and information relating to new complaints registered with the task force since its establishment in November 2012. As at 31 May 2013, there were 2,410 complaints which will be assessed by the task force. Of these, 1,535 are new complaints received by the task force between 26 November 2012 and by 31 May 2013, and 875 are complaints which came from DLA Piper that the task force has consent from the complainant to reassess. Approximately 331 complaints have been identified as duplicates or multiple lodgements by the same person. 510 have not yet provided consent for information to be passed to the task force. These include 173 regarded by DLA Piper as plausible allegations. The task force has received 602 of the plausible allegations made to DLA Piper. I have asked the task force to follow up with DLA Piper to ensure that individuals who have not yet given consent are given every opportunity for their complaints to be assessed by the task force. If they provide such subsequent consent, their allegations will be assessed by the task force. By 6 June 2013, the task force had contacted approximately 1,380 complainants to answer enquiries, assist complainants complete the task force's forms, provide supporting information, discuss the options available to complainants and ascertain which outcomes they wish to pursue. More than 240 complaints were at various points of the assessment process on 6 June 2013 and eight complaints had been provided to the reparation payments assessor for consideration. The task force will endeavour to provide resolution in consultation with the complainant, taking into account his or her individual circumstances and wishes. The task force will only work towards those outcomes the complainant indicates he or she wants. The task force is expressly considering if further investigation through a Royal Commission is required into particular matters identified in the report of the DLA Piper review, in particular in relation to ADFA as outlined previously and in relation to alleged events at HMAS Leeuwin in the 1960s and 1970s. The ADFA 24 is a group of 24 serious allegations of rape from 19 complainants identified in 1998 in the course of the Grey review and later in 2011 in the DLA Piper volume 1 report. I asked the task force to prioritise any ADFA 24 cases that came before it, so that it could provide outcomes for the victims and, where possible, identify the perpetrators of the abuse. In accordance with the long-established practice regarding sexual abuse cases, the task force can only assist victims who come forward and consent to their case being assessed. This ensures that the wishes and welfare of victims are the primary concern. It recognises that a victim might have strong reasons for not wanting their case to be examined, especially if the abuse occurred a long time ago. To date, only four of the 19 complainants of the so-called ADFA 24 cases have consented to their complaints being assessed by the task force. If a victim from the ADFA 24 cases told DLA Piper about their abuse but did not consent to that information coming to the task force, they are still able to provide consent should they decide to do so. Again, I have asked the task force to follow up with DLA Piper to ensure that any such individual who made a complaint to DLA Piper about the ADFA 24 cases who have not yet given consent are given every opportunity for their complaints to be assessed by the task force. If they provide subsequent consent, their allegations will be assessed by the task force. The task force however now has an additional 48 complainants alleging incidents of physical abuse, sexual abuse, harassment or bullying at ADFA. The task force is assessing these ADFA cases as well as the HMAS Leeuwin matters reported to it. At this stage of analysis, several issues are becoming apparent to the task force: the allegations of serious abuse at HMAS Leeuwin and ADFA are more widespread and persistent than was reported in the 1971 Rapke report and in the 1998 Grey review respectively; there are not presently sufficient complainants from those training institutions or detailed information to enable all alleged abusers to be properly identified; the particular issues which arose at HMAS Leeuwin and ADFA can also be seen at other ADF recruit schools and training institutions; and while powers to gather evidence would assist in examining these matters, the task force is currently of the view that it is by no means clear that a Royal Commission is the necessary or the most appropriate mechanism to do so. Implementation of Pathway to change, the Broderick reviews and the work of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce are all essential to ensuring that Defence continues to serve Australia's national interests in a way that is consistent with modern community standards. This includes standards in Defence culture and everyday personal behaviour. Full implementation of the range of cultural reforms is essential to prevent future occurrences of inappropriate conduct and ensuring a zero tolerance response is adopted and implemented if it does occur. This requires ongoing attention and oversight from the highest levels. The government and the Defence leadership are absolutely committed to pursuing the reforms necessary to ensure a zero tolerance response to such inappropriate conduct. I present a copy of the second interim report to the Attorney-General and the Minister of Defence by the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce and I present a paper tabled in conjunction with my ministerial statement. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Fadden to speak for 13 minutes. Leave granted. 09:14 Mr STEPHEN SMITH 5V5 Perth I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Robert speaking for a period not exceeding 13 minutes. Question agreed to. 09:14 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank the minister for once again keeping the House informed on this very important issue of the abuse task force. From the outset, the coalition has provided the strongest bipartisan support to the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce and the great work of judge Len Robert-Smith. As I said to the House at the time of the ministerial apology to those members and former members of the ADF who have been subject to abuse in the ADF, ours is a unique fighting force, a small but potent military that has delivered a disproportionate effect upon every battlefield upon which it has fought. We have a rich military history, and we can rightfully hold our heads high in the concert of nations when it comes to defending freedom. Our history of military endeavour is second to none. Yet despite our overwhelming battlefield success there has been a flood of complaints, some going back to the 1950s, of abuse within the ranks. Our military personnel are our greatest asset, and their wellbeing is our No. 1 priority. Their care while serving our nation is not a price we pay; it is a duty we undertake. By any standard the litany of abuse allegations are completely unacceptable, let alone by the standards of the finest fighting force in the world—the Australian Defence Force. This conduct does not accord with the values of our society, let alone the values of our military. We may well be beholden to our past but it is now our responsibility to ensure that the wrongs inflicted on these fine men and women of the ADF over the last six decades are addressed and, importantly, that these egregious acts and wrongs are addressed to the satisfaction of those aggrieved, whether through counselling, reparation payments, apologies, restorative justice or all of the above. This is what the abuse task force is seeking to achieve. To that extent, we are satisfied with the process being undertaken by the task force, and satisfied with the minister keeping the House completely up-to-date. The minister and I discussed this extensively yesterday, and we agreed to the two following changes that the minister has outlined in his speech: that those who have lodged a complaint to the DLA Piper review but not yet provided consent for their information to be passed to the task force—approximately 173 individuals—will continue to have the ability to do this, to provide consent. In general terms, the deadline of 31 May will ostensibly be waived for them to ensure they have every opportunity for that consent to be provided. Likewise, we agreed that only four of the 19 complainants of these so-called ADFA 24 have consented, again for their information to be provided to the task force. The minister has quite rightly ensured that they will continue to have the provision to have that consent provided and, again, the deadline of 31 May will ostensibly be waived for them. I agree with both of those sensible and reasonable changes that the minister has outlined, quite rightly. I share the minister's concern that allegations of abuse at training institutions may be more widespread than first thought. I am confident, however, that the 'Pathway to Change' that the ADF senior leadership has embarked upon, and the Chief of Army's current response to the issues, have shown that they not only have embarked upon it but that they believe in it and stand behind it. I am confident that this is addressing the change needed. Can I say, as a former ADFA cadet and a former army officer, that I remain resolute that ADFA is an outstanding institution in the modern day. I commended it highly to our nation's sons and daughters. I believe the approach being taken by the senior Defence leadership to address underlying issues of abuse is making and will make a sustained and significant difference. We accept the task force view that they are progressing the matter sensibly and as quickly now as they can, and that they do not yet believe that a royal commission is necessary or, indeed, appropriate in the circumstances. We will continue to monitor the issue with the minister and with the task force. But let me thank the minister for his update to the House. He knows he enjoys the complete bipartisan support of the coalition as he progresses this matter, and I thank him for keeping the nation informed. BILLS 6442 BILLS Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013 6442

Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013

First Reading 6442 Second Reading 6442 09:19 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay 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 taxation laws. Schedule 1 amends the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 to ensure that entities that provide tax agent services in the course of giving advice of a kind that is usually given by a financial services licensee or a representative of licensees are subject to the regulatory regime of the Tax Practitioners Board. These are important consumer protection amendments to ensure the appropriate regulation of all forms of tax advice, irrespective of whether it is provided by a tax agent, a BAS agent or an entity in the financial services industry. These reforms have been subject to extensive consultation with industry. On 6 June 2013, the amendments were also referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. The committee delivered its report on 17 June and recommended that parliament pass the amendments. Throughout this process, we have listened to the concerns of the financial services industry. The government will extend the current exemption and the commencement date of the new regime by 12 months until 1 July 2014. This will allow industry ample time to prepare for the new regime. From 1 July 2014, there will be a three-year transitional period, during which financial services licensees and their representatives may register with the Tax Practitioners Board without meeting all of the education and experience requirements. The government will also undertake further consultation on whether it is necessary to amend the Tax Agent Services Regulations 2009 to ensure the regulations align with the government's intent that the following services should not constitute tax agent services: tax advice provided by a superannuation fund or pension fund pursuant to the issuance of a payment summary; services provided by a superannuation fund's representatives pursuant to 'intra-fund advice' provisions; advice provided by an insurer pursuant to payments of income protection or salary continuance insurance payments and corresponding issue of payment summary and advice therein; and services provided by responsible entities of managed investment schemes to the scheme. Schedule 2 also amends the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 to correct a range of technical issues. Schedule 3 amends the list of deductible gift recipients (DGR) in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Taxpayers can claim income tax deductions for certain gifts to organisations with DGR status. DGR status will assist the listed organisations to attract public support for their activities. Schedule 3 adds two new organisations to the act, namely, the Australian Council of Social Service Incorporated and Make a Mark Australia Incorporated. Full details of these measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 6443 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE Approval of Proposal 6443 09:23 Ms KING 00AMR Ballarat I move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approve the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 17 June 2013, namely: (1) pay parking infrastructure, including machines, signage and minor civil engineering works necessary for the introduction of pay parking in the Parliamentary Zone; and (2) relocation of the Torsional Wave outdoor exhibit to the corner of King George Terrace and Mall Road West adjacent to the Questacon Building. The National Capital Authority proposes to install paid parking voucher machines and signage within the Parliamentary Zone. The National Capital Authority will also commission some minor civil works, such as the construction of additional traffic islands for the successful implementation of this initiative. The installation of this equipment will assist the National Capital Authority in better managing parking in that zone, which has become a problem of late, freeing up much-needed parking space for visitors to our many national institutions in that zone. The works are not inconsistent with relevant policies and strategies in the heritage management plans for the area and will have minimal impact on environment and heritage values. I commend that part of the motion to the House. Also in November last year approval was provided for an outdoor exhibit in a location to the west of Questacon. The National Capital Authority has now received an application for an amended location for the exhibit—that being on the corner of King Edward Terrace and Mall Road West. Questacon proposes to install the torsional wave outdoor exhibit, which I understand is a sculpture that demonstrates the twisting forces in water. It sounds like a particularly beautiful sculpture. That exhibit was proposed to be installed in November this year to celebrate 25 years as Australia's National Science and Technology Centre. The work is consistent with relevant policies and strategies in the heritage management plans for the area. It is considered that the work will have minimal impact on environment and heritage values. I commend this part of the motion to the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 6443 BILLS Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 6443

Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6443 09:26 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston In continuing from last night, I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. Last night I said that I thought this was a disgraceful bill. It is a disgraceful bill because it is deliberately designed to crack down on what has been a successful program to date and there is no evidence that it has not been successful or has been rorted. Secondly, this is a disgraceful bill because it shatters the decades-long bipartisan support for skilled migration into this country. I believe, and I said this last night, that good members of the Labor Party would be deeply embarrassed and indeed be ashamed about this bill. They would be ashamed because it actually abandons the values that they have held for a long time. They would be ashamed because it abandons the bipartisan support for skilled migration that has been so central to the economic and social success of this nation. I know that members on the other side of this chamber, such as Martin Ferguson, Robert McClelland, Simon Crean and even the former minister for immigration, Chris Bowen, would never have put forward a bill such as this one. I do not think that when it comes to voting on this bill they on the other side of the chamber will feel very proud at all that they will have to line up and vote for this disgraceful bill that has been put forward. The bill itself is designed to completely strangle the 457 visa program in red tape. That is what it is designed to do. Make no bones about it. If there are visa rorts in this program then let us deal with them. Of course, Australians should get the jobs first and that should always be the case, but this is not about that. This bill is actually all about delivering for the unions because they have requested this bill be rushed into this parliament in the dying days of this government. We all know that if the unions say to the Labor Party, 'Jump,' then the Labor Party will say, 'How high?' They cannot bring this bill in quickly enough. I am sure they will attempt to guillotine it through this parliament later on today. Why has the government said that we need this legislation which cracks down on 457 visas? Why have they said we need this? In essence they have given two reasons. The first is because they say the 457 visa program has been extensively rorted. The minister for immigration even gave a figure. He said that 10,000 visas have been rorted, which would constitute almost 10 per cent of the program. If that was the case, then, yes, we absolutely need to get on top of this program. But was there any evidence for this 10,000 figure? No, there was no evidence. Where did this figure come from? It transpired, after he announced this figure, that he had actually just made it up. That is right: he made up this figure and the immigration department officials, some of whom are in this chamber today, confirmed this to the Senate estimates. They said that they provided no such advice and could not provide any evidence to support that number. When Tony Sheldon, a union leader, was asked how many 457 visa complaints he had received over the past 12 months—Tony Sheldon has been on this campaign to abolish the 457 visa program, or at least to crack down on it—do you know how many he said? Twenty-four. He had 24 in 12 months. So he is one of the key leaders out there saying, 'This is an outrage; it's being rorted on a daily basis,' and he has had 24 complaints. How many did he report to the immigration department? Zero. Twenty-four complaints, zero reported to the immigration department, and the immigration minister is running around saying there are 10,000 that have been rorted. It is a disgraceful, despicable act of this minister, who does not deserve to be in that high office. The second reason the government has given for needing to crack down on the 457 visa process is they say there has been excessive growth in this program. They say we need to crack down on it because if there is excessive growth, then maybe it is out of control. Again, let us have a look at the numbers. What has been the growth rate between last year and this year? It has been 1.7 per cent. That constitutes 940 more visa holders this year versus last year. Nine hundred and forty, and they have the gall to come in and try to pass this bill because of that. About 940 people come in illegally on boats every few days, but they do not worry about that. But 940 additional applications this year compared to last year, and apparently that is a catastrophe. We know what the Prime Minister said last year. Last year it was all hunky dory, all absolutely perfect because the Prime Minister herself said: I believe we've got the visa settings right … with short-term 457 visas. That was 12 months ago. The Prime Minister herself said that. But we have had 940 additional visa applications and apparently we need to completely crack down on this very successful program. Of course, if you were concerned about the rorting going on in the program—and if there is rorting, let us absolutely deal with it—you would not cut the compliance costs by 30 per cent, which is what this government have done since they came to office. They have cut the compliance cost by 30 per cent. This is not about dealing with rorts; this is squarely about dealing with an issue that the unions want. And when the unions want something, this government delivers. My final point is that this is gross hypocrisy because we all know the Prime Minister herself employs a person on a 457 visa who did not go through their proposed process. (Time expired) 09:37 Mr ADAMS BV5 Lyons The purpose of this bill is to propose a package of measures that are aimed at eliminating the illegitimate use of subclass 457 visa program and other temporary sponsored visa programs. Together with proposed amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994 and other policy changes announced in February 2013, this bill presents a comprehensive package of reforms that would balance the interests of Australian workers with the need to strengthen the protection of overseas workers, so we stop people being ripped off, being exploited. This false argument that we have heard in this parliament in the past few days on this bill, which does not give any concern for Australian workers—but one would not expect much else from the Liberal Party, the Work Choices party! One would not expect anything else from them: these false arguments being proposed, the attacks on the minister—all this false stuff. Importantly this bill gives powers to the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Fair Work inspectors, to monitor, investigate compliance with sponsorship obligations, and to ensure workers are working in their nominated occupation and being paid market salary rates. Well, what is wrong with that? There should not be anything wrong with that, but somehow it is wrong from the Liberal Party's point of view. We had a situation in northern Tasmania: a guy was sponsored into Australia to work in Queensland as a miner and he ended up working as a plasterer in Launceston when there were six or seven other plasterers walking around the streets looking for work. That sort of thing should not occur and there should be some monitoring of that. That is all this bill is asking. There have been a number of cases recently, some of which have been reported in the press and some others anecdotally have come to my attention, that people have been employed on 457 visas, have been employed well below the award rates and have been made to work long hours without proper income. Only on Monday this week, a case was reported on the front page of the Launceston Examiner, and that was an underpayment of $88,000. So what we had there was someone using the legislation to employ people on lower rates. There is also the incidence where 457 visa holders are being employed, despite there being in an Australian, a Tasmanian, to undertake work that is being advertised. We have an unemployment rate in Tasmania of 7.3 per cent against a 5.6 per cent rate for the rest of the country. This legislation will now require subclass 457 sponsors to undertake labour market testing in relation to a nominated occupation in a manner consistent with Australia's relevant international trade obligations to ensure that Australian citizens and permanent residents are given the first opportunities to apply for skilled vacancies in the domestic labour market. It is of concern that, at a time when the labour market has been flattening and some sectors and regions have experienced layoffs and increased unemployment, the subclass 457 program has continued to grow—and grow it has. In the last year, the number of primary 457 visa holders has risen by 20 per cent from 80,000 to 100,000, while employment growth has been just one per cent. There are issues here that need to be dealt with and this bill deals with them. I have real concerns that some employers are turning to overseas workers first, rather than investing in local training and local recruitment—of course, that is a whole other area about training the Australian workforce. There have also been a growing number of low-skilled industries and occupations such as retail and hospitality, while in the IT industry growth in the use of 457 visa holders has been accompanied by lower than average wages, which is the opposite of what you would expect if there were some genuine skill shortages. You would not expect lower than average wages to apply. We have considerable evidence that some sponsors are paying overseas workers below the market rate, undercutting Australians, failing to commit to the training requirements of the program and using the visas fraudulently to help family and friends migrate. The purpose of this bill is to propose a package of integrity measures that seek to enhance the government's ability to eliminate rorts in the subclass 457 visa program and of course other temporary sponsored visa programs. Together with proposed amendments to Migration Regulations 1994, this bill represents a comprehensive package of reforms which will balance the interests of Australian workers with the need to strengthen the protection of overseas workers. We do not want people coming here on 457 visas and being exploited—well, this side of the House does not. This bill amends the Migration Regulations 1994 to extend the period from 28 days to 90 consecutive days, enabling a more socially just outcome for visa holders as they have more time to find other jobs and to arrange their personal affairs at the conclusion of their sponsored employment. It is felt that they need to complement the reforms to the migration regulations announced in February this year. The bill will enshrine in the Migration Act the kind of sponsorship obligations which must be made by the regulations. Employers must ensure equivalent terms and conditions of employment—including payment of a market salary rate—keep certain records and provide records and information to the department and cooperate with the inspectors. These new sponsorship obligations come into effect on 1 July of this year. The obligations need to meet training requirements for the term of sponsorship approval, with no transfer, charge or recovery of certain costs from sponsored visa holders, and restrict on-hiring arrangements. These will be spelled out in the Migration Regulations 1994 and are scheduled to come into effect on 1 July this year. There is an enforcement framework to bar or cancel the approval of a person as a sponsor with an infringement notice and a civil penalty scheme, which would be enforceable in court. This amendment will allow the minister to publish enforcement undertakings on the department's website. This is an important tool to encourage compliance by all sponsors and is a means of providing transparency to the Australian public on the monitoring of sponsors. It will get a bit of transparency in there and will not let people rip people off without having their name exposed for doing it. There seems to be reluctance on the other side of the House to want that to happen. Importantly, the bill gives power to the Fair Work Ombudsman to monitor and investigate compliance with sponsorship obligations to ensure workers are working in their nominated occupation and are being paid market salary rates. By doing so, the government's capacity to monitor sponsors will increase from 33 active inspectors to over 300 inspectors. The government has always said that the subclass 457 visa program, where used genuinely, plays an important role in supplying skilled labour, when such labour is unavailable in the local workforce. It is intended to allow employers to quickly supplement the Australian labour market. These bills seek to realign the program to ensure that it is only used when genuine skills shortages exist, to ensure a balance between considering the interests of employers, the Australian domestic labour force, and strengthening protection for overseas workers. It is worth noting that there has been an increase in the visa application charge from $455 to $900, and as announced in the 2013-14 budget, consideration was also given to increasing the nomination fee for each 457 position from $85 to $330. It is really about getting that balance, and the balance is not right at the moment. People are being ripped off. Australian workers are missing out on jobs that they should have access to. There are jobs that should be advertised better. We have had these debates about the mining industry as well. I think there should be a lot more transparency in the way jobs are advertised in Australia. I have had people say to me that they have every ticket under the sun, they have applied to many websites to get jobs in the mining industry in Australia, they are quite free to travel and to live in mining communities, yet they just do not have access and they get nothing back from applications put in through websites. So there is something happening in this country which is not working properly in the field, and then you have employers sponsoring people to come in from overseas. And then we have this total exploitation taking place, as I mentioned, which was run on the front page of the Tasmanian Examiner on Monday—not a paper which one would say was a Labor radical paper in any way but it certainly got into telling the story about somebody who was in the fast food business and was brought into Australia from China. That person is going to receive $90,000 in back pay as a result of underpayment. That is what the Fair Work Ombudsman's report claimed. The story goes on to highlight that the gentleman involved was made to sign false pay slips, was forced to work enormous amounts of hours as a cook and then had to put his name to false documentation. He did not have a lot of good English so it was very difficult for him to stand up to the exploitation, but inspectors were able to do that. I guess it is about having an inspector with time to do the work and to be able to talk to people about that. It was about being forced to sign documentation which was not true and was not a true reflection of what the proper case was. So here is a prime example in Tasmania of exploitation of a 457 visa person working there. I do not know, given the unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent, if there are any chefs or cooks in Tasmania looking for work but I think there probably are. So I think there is a great deal of need for this bill to rectify some of the problems. It concerns me greatly that the party of Work Choices do not seem to think that this is a major issue in Australia. I believe it is and I believe it needs to be rectified. I believe that the minister responsible for this bill is endeavouring to do that so I ask the House to give full support to this bill. 09:48 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I think the member for Lyons has really put the argument very succinctly as to why the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 is not necessary. He has given us an example of where there has been a problem with the current system, and we are talking about the current system before this legislation had been put in place. So what has happened? The matter was looked at, it was addressed and it was dealt with. So it has been fixed without this bill, which is another clear example of why this bill is unnecessary and should not be here before us today. Let us go back and see what has led to this bill being in parliament. I think that we should rename this bill, calling it the City West Water Bill. For those of us who cannot remember it, in February there was a dispute in Melbourne where the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union took offence at 457 visa holders, Filipinos, who were working in skilled positions constructing a water facility in Werribee. They put in place a community picket line—and we are about to see whether the AMWU were behind that community picket line or not. All of the evidence points out that the AMWU did instigate that picket line, but anyway the courts will decide whether it was a union picket line or a community picket line. In the end what happened to break that picket line was that the state government stood firm and it made sure that the water authorities, City West Water and Melbourne Water, acted. It took the water authorities a little bit of time to act. The union movement thought that they would not act and they thought the authorities would just cower and would not take unions on, but the Victorian state government—and, in particular, the then Premier, Ted Baillieu—stood very firm and insisted that the water authorities do the right thing, which they did. The workers were flown in by helicopter and ultimately the picket line was dismantled. But the AMWU did not want to leave the matter there so they went to Victorian Trades Hall and said, 'We've got an issue with regards to 457 workers. We don't want them anymore doing these skilled jobs.' So Trades Hall then put out a pronouncement saying that if the union movement in Victoria were to get strongly behind this federal Labor government one of the conditions would be that something be done about 457 visas. So Trades Hall said, 'It's up to you, federal government. If you want additional support you do something in this area.' That is why we are here today debating this bill. It has nothing to do with evidence, it has nothing to do with facts and it has everything to do with this Labor government being dictated to by the union movement. It is a sad state of affairs when you have a Prime Minister, desperately clinging to power, who is prepared to put the national interest over here and act in her own base political interest to try to hang on to her prime ministership. There are reports today that it is still not going to work for her, because the key ally of the union movement in this place, Bill Shorten, is meant to be off talking to the unions to see whether they should continue to support this Prime Minister or whether they should switch camps. We have a piece of legislation before us which will do nothing for this nation. As a matter of fact, it will set the cause of this nation back, all because we have a Prime Minister clinging desperately to power, hoping that the union movement will continue to back her. Now we hear on the news wires that the grip that the union movement have on her is slipping away, because they are once again looking at reinstalling Kevin Rudd. Why is this a bad piece of legislation? It is a bad piece of legislation because, as I said before, there is no evidence whatsoever that the 457 visa system is being systematically rorted. As a matter of fact, as my good friend the member for Aston highlighted in his speech, there have been 24 complaints in the last 12 months about the 457 visa system and of those 24 complaints zero have been passed on to the immigration department. That is right: 24 complaints in 12 months and zero passed on to the immigration department. Those facts say it all. It shows what an absolute sham piece of legislation this is. And it is worse than that, because it is adding a regulatory impact on those employers who are using this system to fill skills gaps, and there is a real need for us to continue to fill skills gaps in this country. One of the sad things about this bill is that until now there has been broad bipartisanship for the 457 visa system and for using skilled migration in this country. I take this opportunity to once again thank the former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, for the support he gave to one of my local communities in Warrnambool. Six families who had come in under 457 visas, because of some issues with regard to meeting English language proficiency, might have been sent back to where they came from—in this case, China—but the minister was prepared to intervene. The six workers had worked in the local abattoir for over five years and their families had been through the local schools. Minister Bowen, to his credit, intervened and made sure that those families could stay and continue to work in our community and participate in our community. That is the type of bipartisan approach to 457 visas that we have seen historically. Yet, sadly, with this Prime Minister desperately clinging to power, at the behest of the union movement we see a bill like this come into this place. We on this side know that most of the good people on the other side do not support it. They have said that publicly. They do not think that this is a good piece of legislation. They know that this is a piece of legislation aimed at trying to address a problem which does not exist. It is a great pity we are here today examining this bill, spending time on this bill, because it will add a regulatory burden on employers. We know that it will because the government refused to have a regulatory impact statement done on it. Why would they refuse to have a regulatory impact statement done on this bill? Because they know, and it is there for all to see, that it will add to the burden of employers trying to bring skilled workers into this country. And it is not as if this is a rare piece of legislation that will be adding a regulatory burden. We have seen over the course of the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments over 21,000 pieces of legislation which have added a regulatory burden for employers. This is just another one to add to this list. The real shame is that there is a real need for the 457 visa system. Just this week I have had a group of my local councils up here—the Great South Coast Group of councils. One of the priority items on their list was to talk to ministers and shadow ministers about is how we can improve the 457 visa system to bring more skilled people into our community. They are up here on behalf of our local community asking how the system can be improved, how it can be streamlined, how it can work better to bring people in. That is what my community is seeking. Yet what do we have here? We have a government so out of touch that they are doing exactly the opposite. They are making it harder. When we are looking to get workers for our abattoirs, when we are looking to get workers for our dairy farms, when we are looking to get medical staff for our hospitals, what will we be faced with? We will be faced with an additional regulatory burden, not a situation which makes it easier for us to cope with these skill shortages. And let us not forget that, if you do not have the nurses and you cannot get the doctors and support staff from overseas, it places great risks on our local health services. I think this is a problem which is not understood by this Gillard Labor government. This is a real area of need. We have to continue to get the workforce so that we can keep our medical facilities operating, especially in regional and rural areas. We need to build our own Australian medical workforce, but while we are doing that we need to ensure that we can fill the gaps, because if you do not fill the gaps then you place undue pressure on these services, which can lead to parts of them closing. So this is a bad bill. Once you start to join the dots, what has occurred here is incredibly transparent. It is like one of those children's colouring books where you are given the dots and you have to get your pencil and just follow the dots to draw the picture. Here it is very easy to join the dots. This bill has come about because of an industrial dispute that the unions were on the wrong side of in February in Melbourne. They tried to take on a contractor who was legally using 457 visas that had been approved by this government. The AMWU tried to take it on. They lost. They went to Trades Hall. Trades Hall then said: 'Okay, federal Gillard government. If you want our continued support, we want action.' And what do we have here today? We have a bill which adds a regulatory burden on the use of 457 visas, with no evidence to support the idea that there should be an additional regulatory burden added to this area. It breaks what has been a very good bipartisan approach to bringing skilled migration into this country—an approach that we are going to need in the future because, as we continue to grow and develop as a nation, we are going to have to continue to bring skilled migrants into this country. So in many ways what we are here debating today is shameful, and I feel sorry for those on the other side who, in their heart of hearts, know that as well—who know that this is a bill masquerading as something else, trying to cover up a broader problem that this government has. That broader problem is that it does not know how to run a properly functioning immigration system. This bill should be strongly opposed. I hope that more people on the other side will have the courage also to call this bill for what it is. 10:03 Mr JENKINS HH4 Scullin Mr Deputy Speaker, under sessional order 142A I was wondering whether the member for Wannon would entertain a question on his contribution to this second reading debate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member for Wannon? The member for Scullin wishes to intervene and ask a question, which he has every right to do. But it is entirely up to you if you wish to answer. Mr Tehan 210911 No, he can ask this question. Mr JENKINS HH4 I thank the member for Wannon. Without getting into the debate—because you cannot debate through a question—I ask the member for Wannon whether he believes that, in the case of the abattoirs and health services that he has talked about locally, it is appropriate that those that are employed under 457 visas get the same pay and conditions as Australians and, if so, how he believes that that should be regulated. 10:04 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for his question. It is a shame that he was not here at the very start of my speech, because the previous speaker on the government side on this bill, the member for Lyons, gave an example of an instance in Tasmania where there had been an issue and an employee had been exploited. Then he went through the story and gave the example of how it had been dealt with satisfactorily, how the worker had been back-paid some $88,000 and how the employer had been dealt with in having to pay that back pay. So he gave an example of how the system is working. So the reason we are here today is not to debate whether the system is working or not, because the example that the member for Lyons gave showed that it is working. What we are here debating today, and the whole point of my speech, is that this is nothing but a piece of legislation aimed at trying to fix a broader political problem that this government has, and that broader political problem is that it cannot run a functioning immigration system. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this bill being in this place. As I indicated, over the last 12 months there have been 24 complaints, none of them—zero—referred on to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. There have been 24 complaints in 12 months, none reported on to the immigration department. This bill is here at the behest of the union movement because they saw a problem and they said to the Gillard government, 'We want you to fix this political problem for us.' It is a sham piece of legislation. Debate adjourned. Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013 6452

Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Reference to Federation Chamber 6452 10:06 Mr STEPHEN SMITH 5V5 Perth by leave—I move: That the Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 6452

Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6452 10:06 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Cook has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'that the amendment be agreed to'. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 10:07 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page I have listened to the debate on this Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. I heard the member for Wannon from the coalition side debating it. There are a few points I want to pick up on. I say to him, and to the coalition, it can never be a burden to protect Australian jobs. I just do not understand how that can be a burden. That is what this amendment is about. I want to protect the jobs of the people in my electorate of Page and I will do all I can to promote them. That is my job, that is my role and that is why I am supporting this amending bill before the House today. I know from when I talk to people right across my electorate of Page that they support the system of temporary overseas workers, which is 457 visas, because they know that it is needed at times, but equally they want to be assured and reassured that the government and the parliament have laws, procedures and protocols in place that ensure that their jobs come first and that when employers are looking for employees and are struggling with that at times everything has been done that can possibly be done. I will give a couple of local examples, further on, that show 457s can work effectively where we are doing the right thing by people who are unemployed in my area. Survey results that the Migration Council published in their report showed that 15 per cent of employers chose to use the 457 system despite admitting they had no problem finding labour locally. Someone on the other side can stand here and say everything is working and it is hunky-dory but that is just simply not true. If you look in the Migration Council report the survey results show that employers are still recruiting under the 457 system for temporary overseas workers despite saying they have had no problem finding labour locally. That is a problem and that needs to be addressed. No government can read that and go, 'Oh well, that is fine, I am just going to ignore that and just let it roll on.' It is like any system. Any system needs constant monitoring and reviewing and, if there are problems with it, you seek to fix the problems. That is what the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has brought before this place. The figures that I read for the 457 visa holders show they have risen by around 20 per cent and that is while employment growth has been around the one per cent mark. Thank goodness we have employment growth but, at the same time, you have this growth in 457 visas. When you do a risk analysis and you have your green, amber and red lights, these things show up as a red light. I do not know how the department do their work but I know that the boards and other things I serve on do the risk analysis and we have the lights—the green, the amber and the red. Everything I have read shows there are a lot of red lights within this system. I am talking about a national level and that governments have to look at it nationally. We need to be assured there is investment in local training and recruitment. That is where the government has done a lot to ensure there is that investment. I turn now to my seat of Page. We have a local employment coordinator who has an advisory committee. He has done some remarkable work right across my electorate but also beyond my electorate. It goes into the electorates of Richmond, Cowper, Lyne and New England. The footprint of our local employment coordinator is quite large. I do not know how he does it but he does. It is a big area. The member for Wannon talked about meatworks. I have an abattoir, the Northern Co-operative Meat Co., in my seat. It is a big employer with nearly a thousand employees. It uses 457 visas for temporary overseas workers and the system has been working well. Where there are some shortages, people come in on a temporary basis to work in the abattoirs on the 457 visas, but the company is also investing in local training and recruitment with the assistance of the local employment coordinator and also state training through New South Wales Department of Education and Communities. They are involved because everything we do, we do cooperatively in my area. When we do that work we all join together and work on it. I stay apprised of all these developments because they are things I am very interested in and interested in advancing. At my local abattoirs they are actually investing in locals and training them up. They have recruited and they have trained. We also have the second largest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population in Australia in my seat and further across that North Coast footprint. We have very high figures and higher unemployment figures resulting from that as well. Yet within our meatworks they have local people and local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander fellows. They are in there working and staying. The investment and the training are paying off. We have the two things happening there that should be happening. Where there is a shortage we have the 457s and that is working and we also have that local training and recruitment. I put that up because that is a bit of a model for people to look at to see how they should work. Everything I have read, all the figures, all the reports I have looked at show that that is not the case right across Australia. If that were the case right across Australia, we would not need to be here with the amending bill. But I am sure it does happen in other places in Australia. This bill also says there will be labour market testing in relation to a nominated non-graduate occupation et cetera and that that will be a standard thing. I have seen the labour market testing that happens in my area because of the way we work—we have that cooperative model and we have all the figures, the stuff from DEEWR and the people on the ground. So we do that and have a process that works. I also have read that that does not work in other places. I understand it was a protocol and a protocol that has fallen down, and those protocols cannot fall down. They just have to operate to make sure this system maintains its integrity. If an amendment is required to do it, that is what we do. I can point again to how it works in my area. It also involves Regional Development Australia, which has had various incarnations. They were involved in that process. So, again, I look locally to see where it does work. If you talk to people on the street, people always say to you: 'Okay, we've got these unemployment figures. I know people in my family who don't have jobs. They would go and do these jobs if they were recruited into them and trained. Why are we bringing people in from overseas?' That is a common refrain in the community. Every member would know that. Despite what they say in this place, every member hears that on the street and when they are out and about in all their community functions. It is up to us to explain how it works and, if it is not working, making it work better. Ultimately, these schemes and what we do in industry and the workforce rely on community acceptance, not just industry acceptance. I understand the needs of industry right across my seat. I have a fair idea of it nationally, but my job is in Page. I get it there. So it is this balance that we have to achieve all the time, and sometimes that needs recalibration. This bill represents that recalibration. You have the system in place. There are some things that clearly are not working. We have to do the recalibration and make sure the integrity of the system is there so that each and every member can confidently say to our communities, 'We're doing the best we can by you and by those people who are unemployed and underemployed to make sure you've got every opportunity for training and recruitment.' We have to see that the employers are doing that, and then we can recruit and bring people in on the 457 visas and have temporary overseas workers. I am well aware of it in the health area as well. There are certain needs there. I have led advocacy around recruitment of overseas born doctors where there has been a need for them in Australia, particularly in rural and remote areas. I live in an area you might not see as remote, but we have certainly had need to recruit doctors in that area. It is certainly rural and regional where I live, so we have had a need to do those things. I am talking some years back being involved in that system at state level too, opening it up so we could assist with getting medical people and doctors into those areas. So I am very mindful of always putting the needs of the community first. If we come to this place and that is our primary principle then we can make the best decisions. You start from the primary principles of community and Australian jobs first but equally balancing it with the needs of the industry because, if industry cannot work and is too hamstrung, it cannot provide the jobs that it needs to. That is always the point of this: getting that calibration right so that they are the people we look after. We need to answer those questions from our electorate absolutely honestly. There are a few other points I want to make about this issue. This is from some of the readings that I have done like the Migration Council report and other notes in that. One of the things it says is that this legislation will require the employers to test the local labour market. I know how we do that in my area, and it will be interesting to see how that is developed with the regulation, because it needs to be done in a way that has integrity so it is really clear. It will need to be standardised like with the Fair Work Act, where we have those 10 principles. It will also need to be adaptable to certain areas and regions. That way, if we show to the community that that has been done and the employer has done it, we can say, 'Everything has been done on the ground to recruit and to give Australian citizens first go; we were not able to in this case, and therefore these people will need to come on a temporary basis and work and live in our community.' We shall welcome them because it is our obligation at the community level to welcome them into the community when they are coming to do jobs that we cannot recruit people in. Of itself, that will give integrity to the system. It will give reassurance to the community and allow employers to say, 'Yes, I need these workers here.' So we all need those benchmarks in a way that we can rely on them not just on paper and so that it is acculturated within the community so we know everything has been done. The bill has other amendments—there are other things that is does—but that was one of the main ones I wanted to talk about. I want to finish on the coalition saying this needs bipartisanship. They have blown bipartisanship on asylum seekers. (Time expired) 10:22 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I oppose this bill and remind the previous speaker that there has been no regulatory impact statement done to accompany this bill either. That is something that was completely missing from the previous speaker's comments. That demonstrates that there is no greater difference between the philosophies of each side of this House than in the treatment of the Australian business community. Haven't we seen that! This applies to all forms of business, whether it is a small mum-and-dad business or others and medium and large businesses, and this bill is further irrefutable proof of that difference between both sides in this place. On this side, we understand business and are the friends of business. We understand that business, industry and, particularly, small business employ millions and millions of Australians. We are committed to helping our businesses grow. We need them to flourish and, where we can, we need to help them to do so. We need to get out of the way when we cannot assist them to grow and flourish because we need to enable them to employ even more workers. But on the other side, as we have heard, the Labor government and its union bosses simply cannot get beyond the politics. They cannot get beyond the politics of division and envy, and it appears to me an utter resentment of the success that comes from the hard work, commitment, endeavour and risk that business, small business particularly, is prepared to take in Australia. I make no apologies that we are here to help business and industry get ahead. It is in this nation's interests and certainly in the interests of people who work in this country. Yet the Labor government is clearly here to literally drag those businesses back down if they dare to be successful—how dare you be successful!—or just do as the unions are demanding. This simple question and equation is emblematic of the political divide in Australia, and the current bill is a prime example of that. We know that Australian businesses and industry can only thrive with a capable and adequate workforce. It is the key to viability, productivity and being able to employ even more Australians. I know how important workers are to a business; they are critical. In a recent survey, conducted through the Bunbury Chamber of Commerce and Industry in my electorate, the ability to attract and retain good staff was given the highest priority by Bunbury business owners. We have had major challenges in my electorate in attracting and retaining staff. It is really clear that small businesses particularly know and respect the fact that their staff is their highest priority and critical to their business. It is a great asset and their most important resource, which brings me to the substance of this bill. Again, the coalition understands clearly what the Labor government does not and why this is clearly another cynical political exercise. We on this side know that in some industries in some geographical regions of Australia it is simply not possible to find the workforce that businesses and local industry need, and there are a lot of reasons. It could be that the special skills or experiences needed are not available. In some instances, the skills are available, but those that have them are unwilling to travel to the regional and remote regions where the jobs are. Sometimes, it is a combination of reasons. Those are the circumstances in which the 457 program has come to the rescue of the struggling businesses desperate for workers. You cannot produce if you have no-one to help you produce it. You simply cannot do your business. The work that is done is what keeps them in business. We know that approximately 75 per cent of 457 visa holders are of a professional or managerial nature. These are not competing with Australian workers for unskilled jobs, but they are a vital part of keeping our economy running. If you are in a regional area, certainly in my part of the world, you know all about shortages. I wonder: why on earth has this Labor government been so utterly determined in its rhetoric to, basically, demonise foreign workers? I find it appalling. In the same vein, it also brings that same focus to Australian small, medium and large businesses who rely on 457 visas. That is why this is a political exercise and nothing more. We certainly have not seen any of the evidence. We know that the government wanted to get this particular legislation through before the Senate report came down. We know that there is no widespread rorting of the program. The government simply failed to come up with the evidence. We heard the totally unsupported claims that the Labor minister made and we have also heard subsequently of the 24 complaints in 12 months of which zero have been passed on to the immigration department. No evidence has been presented that this is the case. In fact the opposite from what we have here is the case. We have heard what the minister has to say about this. Unfortunately, again with the rhetoric of division, we have seen fear and political spin. This is, unfortunately, part of the Labor philosophy. We know that there is a real business need. There is a need in industry, and there is an economic need for this bill to be defeated. If the Gillard government really lived up to its catchcry of 'put jobs and growth first', it would pull this bill immediately if that was its genuine intent. But this is not a business decision, an industrial issue or an economic issue. We know that it is simply a political issue, one that is being dictated by the unions, and, of course, the government is doing exactly what the unions want. We know that there is no regulatory impact statement accompanying this bill, again showing how Labor does not understand business at all, is not interested in what happens in business and has no understanding. How many Labor ministers and members have ever invested their own money, as we see with small and medium businesses? How many have actually invested their own money and taken a risk, mortgaged their own home, to build their own business? It takes years and it takes hard work and it takes passion and it takes hours and hours of worry. How many of the Labor ministers have done this? How many have ever employed local people, someone from their community? How many have ever filled out a BAS statement? Clearly, it would have to be very few, because if they had then this bill would not be before the House today, particularly if they had been the owner or the creator of a business who could not find anyone to work with them to get the work done so that they could be profitable and offer opportunities to other Australians. If they had done that they would have had firsthand experience. Come and try to get a business up and running in a small rural or regional area. Come and look for people able to do the job you need them to do and find you are not able to get the employees you need. We do not see that experience coming through from those on the other side, and that is why this bill is before the House. When small businesses are short-staffed and in desperate need of workers, the Labor government has decided to impose a significant workload and paper trail on businesses to prove that they cannot find workers locally. Again, there is not even a regulatory impact statement to go with it—we just have to do it. Currently, skill shortages are identified by the inclusion on the skilled occupation list of the department of immigration, which takes its advice from Skills Australia. Prospective employers can apply for 457s for workers in occupations on that list. For the occupations not on the list, employers have to undertake labour market testing and be able to demonstrate an inability to fill the positions domestically. The bill removes the distinction and requires all employers to market test, unless the minister provides an exemption. Well, we'll be waiting for that! This is political interference in employment. It is the type of input that has decimated Australia's competitive advantage and undermined our productivity. It adds just another layer. If any of the ministers or anyone on the other side ever go out and talk to business, ask them about red tape and see what they say. Once again, you have added another layer, when business is already overburdened, and it creates uncertainty. The government, as we know, exempted this particular bill from a regulatory impact statement. That's not important! Why would that matter to business, particularly small business? I assume it must be out of embarrassment as to what that regulatory impact statement would have contained. The south-west of Western Australia, like so much in that great state, relies on 457 visa workers to keep our region moving and growing. What is there about that that the government does not understand? It is especially noticeable in the agricultural and food processing industries. A lot of farm labour is hard and isolated work. Many Australians may not be prepared to do it. The farmers tell me so: they cannot get the workers to travel to regional and remote areas for the sort of work that is involved. As well, we know that food processing industries are struggling to find local staff; they just cannot get them, so they cannot process. Because of this we have many 457 visa holders who have found themselves fruit picking or working in abattoirs or in food processing. There is no-one to do the work, but these jobs still have to be filled because they cannot run their plant otherwise. Some might not consider those attractive jobs, but they are vital jobs if Australians want to eat and if we want to help feed others. At a time when many food producers themselves are struggling, this is not the time to make finding staff harder, but that is what the government is doing. Obviously, none of them on that side are involved in this sector; none of them have any understanding of what it is like to try to recruit and retain staff in a rural and remote area. They have no idea at all, and no consideration. They are just adding to the burden of someone doing business. The most astounding part of this bill is its timing and the government's absolute hypocrisy. That is all this is. We know that the government has lost control of Australia's borders and we know that illegal arrivals are at the worst level this nation has seen. There have been more than 44,600 under Labor, more than the population of the city of Bunbury or the city of Busselton in my electorate. But three months from the election we are not debating that—one of the three really important issues that the Prime Minister used as her imperative for taking over from her predecessor. We are not going to fix our biggest immigration problem because that would require this government to admit that they got it wrong to start with. Instead—and here we go with the hypocrisy—we are going to target legitimate workers and struggling businesses, particularly those in rural and regional areas who cannot get workers. All I can assume from that is that they are a softer target for this government than the people smugglers. When I move around my electorate I meet the businesses that have this problem and I know that we have real challenges in the hospitality and tourism sector. I asked a business how it was going and they said to me, 'We can't get workers.' They said they had done everything. In the end they said to me, 'Well, Nola, you go and get that bus out the front, you go and pick up everybody around who is capable of working here, or even wants to work here, and we will employ them, because we haven't got anybody to work in this business.' That is why they have to use 457 visa holders. At the time they could not get welders or heavy duty diesel mechanics, so they could not get their job done. This government is going to make it more difficult for all those business. If you are a small to medium business in rural, regional or even remote Australia and you are trying to find workers to get the job done, you have just had your job made so much more difficult by this government, which has no understanding and no interest. This is all about politics, certainly not about good government. I strongly oppose this bill. 10:37 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I rise to speak against the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. This bill is a farce. It is a cover-up. It is a smoke-and-mirrors effort by a very desperate government determined to divide Australians. I find it fascinating to listen to the previous speakers and their hue and cry about Australian jobs. This is nothing short of hypocrisy to say the least. They would have you believe that we want to bring in skilled workers to bring slave labour into this country; to be paid at lower conditions and with lower standards than Australians. They would have you believe that the 457 visa skilled workers are being rorted and that they are taking away Australian jobs. I will come to that in a minute. What is more concerning is that the rushed attempt to ram through this piece of legislation without adequate parliamentary scrutiny through inquiry and consultation leads this coalition not to support this bill. This attack, led by the Prime Minister, is an attempt to do nothing more than pit Australians against Australians. It reeks of political opportunism. To show you evidence of how much need there is for the 457 visa program, I will quote from a press release: … the tourism industry is facing a shortage of skilled labour in regional areas. … … … The 457 visa program provides employers with an avenue to sponsor experienced tourism professionals from overseas. Not only can these professionals fill critical skills gaps, they can train young Australians looking for a career in the tourism and hospitality sectors … As the shadow minister for tourism, did I write that press release? No. Did the Liberal Party write that press release? No. Did the tourism industry write this press release? No. This is actually a joint press release from the Labor tourism and immigration ministers in 2011. They identified a skill shortage that needed to be filled. A skill shortage that, if it is not filled, will lead to a loss of jobs and skills in Australia. So, as I said, Labor's hypocrisy knows no bounds. They continue to belittle and demonise overseas workers at the same time that they have 457 workers on their own staff. Perhaps, during the process of the debate today, the Prime Minister could come in here and tell the House why she could find no suitably qualified Australian worker to fill the role of chief spin doctor in her office. What market testing did she do? Where was the advertising? I did not see any advertising. What processes did she go through? Or did she just do a captain's pick and say, 'I'll have you and I'll just skip the process'? Part of the 457 visa process includes schedules with lists of skilled occupations that are allowed to be brought in under 457s. The only people this does not apply to are state or territory governments. That would include federal governments. So the Prime Minister did not even have to satisfy the employment criteria that other businesses would normally have to go through. It was a captain's pick. I read through these lists and I was looking for 'spin doctor'. I was looking for 'chief media adviser'; nothing there for that. I did find a few here that I thought might have been close: 'theatrical adviser' or 'stage manager' maybe? 'Exit stage left'. There was a range of professions here but nothing that came close. It was obviously a captain's pick. What we have here is pure hypocrisy by a Prime Minister, confected outrage that the 457 system was being massively rorted. In fact her minister talked of '10,000 rorts'. I would say that the government has been caught out telling porkies. Then again, maybe the performance of her chief spin doctor is the reason that she has been so driven to drop 457s; so that she would never make the same mistake again. And we could base that on the performance that she has applied due to the professional advice that she has had; perhaps she wants to stop certain people coming into Australia that she has employed. Skilled migration has been a key driver of Australia's economic performance. It addresses skill shortages so industry can grow, and provide jobs and economic benefits for all Australians. Make no mistake, when the government introduced this bill they did it for one reason: to shore up union support. This is a Prime Minister who is run by the unions, put in there by the unions and is only loyal to the unions, not to the Australian people. This bill has been introduced because the unions demanded it. Let us go through a few facts—and the Prime Minister keeps using those words 'the facts': in 2012-13 to 30 April, there have only been 6,740 primary applications lodged for 457 visas in the accommodation and food services industry. I quote that because I am the shadow minister for tourism. What I would like this Labor government to explain is: if we did not have this program, how many tourism businesses would have to shut because they did not have the skilled staff necessary to open their business? How would a Gillard government expect hotels or restaurants to open if they do not have the professional chefs to prepare the meals? More so, and outside that realm, how will the mining camps feed the fly-in fly-out miners without the food professionals? If you take out one link in the chain, Australian jobs suffer. So, if you have no chefs—no food professionals, and your restaurant cannot open—that means the Australian back-of-house staff and front-of-house staff have no jobs. If the hotel cannot open because it cannot provide food, then that means the whole chain of workers in there no longer have jobs. If you cannot feed your miners out at the mine site they do not go there, so all of those jobs are affected. This government does not understand the ramifications of its own actions. The government clearly needs to understand that there is a skills shortage in a whole range of areas. The coalition has serious concerns about this bill, and not the least the fact that there is no regulatory impact statement—nor has there been proper consultation. I note a release from Tourism Accommodation Australia, which says: TAA has serious concerns about the Government's plans to restrict the use of 457 skilled worker visas, which are critical to the accommodation industry. In contrast to the over-the-top rhetoric being employed by some members of the Government, 457 visas are not taking jobs away from Australians. 457 visas are reserved for workers with specific skills or qualifications in identified areas of shortage in the local workforce. 457 visas are used by a majority of accommodation hotels to fill skills shortages in areas such as cookery and hotel management. Tightening the screws on 457 visas will do nothing to help Australian workers find jobs, but it will impose yet more red tape and regulation on employers in the accommodation industry that are, in many cases, already struggling to meet the service demands of customers. That is from one of the peak bodies in the tourism industry. This is a government that does not even bother to consult with the largest employment group in Australia. This bill contains a bizarre attack—it is actually a 'back to the future' attempt to reintroduce labour market testing, which operated from 1996 through to 2001, and was found at the time to be ineffective, costly and with a significant delay to employer recruitment action. But most concerning, this bill is based on a false premise. The government has completely made up the numbers to suggest widespread abuse of the 457 scheme. Labor's attack on skilled migration is a desperate distraction from their failed border protection policies, which have seen almost 700 boats arrive with more than 44,200 people on board. To give you an idea, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are 108,000 people in Australia on 457 visas—108,000—and there have been 44,200 people arrive on this government's stint. That is 39 per cent—just so that you understand the numbers. I think there is a greater problem with those who come here illegally rather than those who come here legally, who provide great benefit to our economy and who actually help to produce jobs in Australia. In fact, the only jobs that illegal immigrants help to grow in Australia are those that actually have to go and monitor, administer and control them whilst they are in detention. So on one hand we have a group of people who are contributing to our economy and on the other hand we have a group of people who are costing this economy over $10 billion. The government has its priorities wrong. It wants to stop those who are going to come here for the right reasons and promote those who come here for the wrong reasons. This Prime Minister has a renewed enthusiasm to trash-talk our skilled migration program by demonising the 457 skilled migration visas. It damages our international reputation and makes a mockery of the government's own Asian century white paper, which barely lasted through the summer. It demonstrates that this Prime Minister has truly lost her way. This Prime Minister, and the previous Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, spent years telling Australia and its international audience that they had the balance right on 457 migration visas. Yet now the Prime Minister, after her visit to Western Sydney, is telling everyone that the system is out of control. Yet it was just 12 months ago that the Prime Minister said, 'I believe we've got the visa settings right, particularly with short-term 457 visas'. Only 940 visas have been introduced above and beyond last year's measures. That is growth of only 1.7 per cent. Boy, I wish that the illegal immigrants would increase by only 1.7 per cent; we would not have the budget mess that we have now. The changes to the 457 migration scheme have not been based on any demonstrated rorting or widespread abuse as the government has claimed. The minister has claimed a figure of 10,000 cases of people rorting 457 visas. He said that we have to look at the excessive growth of the 457 visa regime. There is no evidence of 10,000 rorts. It is a figure, a number, pulled out of the air by a minister who knows not what he does. In fact, the Migration Council of Australia has disputed Labor's claims and condemned the Prime Minister for demonising 457 skilled migration visas. The government's own advisers say that there is no evidence of widespread rorting of 457 skilled migration programs. In fact, demographer Professor Peter McDonald, a member of the government's Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration, has called the Prime Minister's rhetoric 'nasty'. Under Labor, 457 skilled migration visa grants have grown to their highest level ever: 125,070 visa applications were granted in 2011-12. If any rorts have occurred, they have occurred on this Labor government's watch. Since 2007-08, Labor has cut the resourcing for compliance work in DIAC, including 457 monitoring, by over $20 million. That is 30 per cent. Monitoring visits to employers are down 67 per cent. The number of employer sponsors formally warned has also dropped by two thirds. Just as Labor cannot protect our borders, they cannot police the immigration system they have here in Australia. As I said before, the 457 visa program plays a critical part in our Australian economy. It provides for short-term take-up of necessary skills for projects, employment and industries to go ahead. As I said earlier in my speech, if you take out one key link in the employment chain then hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs will suffer. This government has not thought it through, and it has not thought it through because it is a slave of the union movement. This is nothing more than shoring up union support, not supporting Australians into Australia's jobs. They should be condemned for their rhetoric; they should be condemned for their actions. This bill should not pass the House. 10:52 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne I will not be supporting the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. Both the Prime Minister and the minister have been informed of this, both informally over the past week at least and formally in writing. I have looked closely at the forms that a business sponsor fills in when applying for a subclass 457 visa for an employee and the forms clearly show obligations for the business sponsors to follow as well as showing sanctions and penalties that are available to the minister and the department where these standards and obligations are not met. These include financial penalties, the removal of any rights to participate in the future in visa programs—the 457 program and others—and other quite onerous penalties. Form 1196N, the business sponsor application form, states: To ensure the integrity of the subclass 457 visa program, the department has a thorough monitoring process to assist in ensuring compliance with all program requirements and all relevant Australian laws. That is in the actual form itself that business sponsors use to apply to the Australian government Department of Immigration and Citizenship when nominating overseas employees to work temporarily in Australia. When you look at the form, you see that the sponsorship obligations are very clear. There is a sponsorship obligation to cooperate with inspectors. The form states that the standard business sponsor must cooperate with inspectors appointed under the Migration Act in all aspects of the application process. There is an obligation to ensure equivalent terms and conditions of employment. The form states: The standard business sponsor must ensure that the terms and conditions of employment provided to a primary sponsored person are no less favourable than the terms and conditions the person provides, or would provide, to an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident to perform equivalent work in the person's workplace at the same location. So, in relation to the issue of Aussie jobs versus foreign workers, the obligation on the business sponsor is already there to make sure that that is not an either/or choice. There are obligations to pay travel costs to enable sponsored persons to leave Australia. There are obligations to pay costs incurred by the Commonwealth to locate or remove unlawful noncitizens. There may be people concerned that there are people running around the countryside at taxpayers' expense, but the obligation is on the business sponsor to meet costs incurred in that case. There is an obligation to keep records. There have been concerns expressed that people may be running some sort of racket in some businesses—'abusing' and 'rorting' is some of the language that has been used. There are obligations in the application process to keep all records, and sanctions and penalties can be applied if there has been any abuse of that. There is an obligation to provide records and to provide information to the minister. When you fill in your very first form you are aware of those obligations. There is an obligation to provide information to the department when certain events occur. There are obligations to ensure the primary sponsored person works or participates in the nominated occupation, program or activity. That seems to be at the heart of what we are debating today. There seems to be some argument presented that people are not working in the nominated occupation, program or activity. Yet when you fill in form 1196N you are signing your business, your sponsorship and your reputation to an obligation that ensures that primary sponsored persons work or participate in the nominated occupation, program or activity. There are obligations not to recover certain costs from a primary sponsored person or a secondary sponsored person. There are sanctions for failing to satisfy sponsorship obligations. The penalties exist under current law. The form states: If the standard business sponsor fails to satisfy a sponsorship obligation, the Minister may take one or more of the following actions: bar the sponsor … from sponsoring more people under the terms of one or more existing approvals as a sponsor for different kinds of visas— not just 457s; you can take businesses out from applying for any foreign worker in any form— bar the sponsor, for a specified period, from making future applications … cancelling one or all of the sponsor's existing approvals as a sponsor; require and take a security … You can take money from these businesses if they do not meet the recognised obligations. The minister can: enforce a security already taken; issue an infringement notice of up to AUD10,200 for a body corporate and AUD2,040 for an individual for each failure; or apply to a Court for a civil penalty order of up to AUD51,000 for a corporation and AUD10,200 for an individual for each failure. Then the form goes into a whole range of other circumstances in which the minister may take administrative action, including the provision of false or misleading information to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship or the Migration Review Tribunal. So if anyone is bowling up with false information and then employing someone in a different job, the power is here in very clear terms, in the initial form that is filled in in the application process, for the minister to do something about it. And there is a whole range of other circumstances in which the minister can act. The point about why I have gone through that is this: when this rhetoric began two months ago—that there was broadscale rorting of the 457 visas—I asked for evidence from the ministers and the various supporters involved in this push to demonstrate that the rhetoric was real, that there was widescale rorting. The best evidence that the ministers and certain unions have been able to put forward—this is not to comment or reflect on other work that they do—is some sort of argument that in the construction industry there has been 1.1 per cent growth generally, but there has been a 20 per cent growth in 457 visas. My response is, that is not evidence of widescale rorting. That is evidence of obligations and sanctions under current law being met. DIAC and the minister are either using the powers they have got or they are not. What is going on within the minister's office and within the minister's discretion as a decision maker to use the very clear obligations and sanctions under the existing process? Why aren't they being used if there is this widescale rorting? When you look at the forms filled in, it is very clear, and the powers are very clear—and the powers are actually pretty good and pretty strong—so what is the problem in using them? All I can find is what seems to be a concern about resourcing—that is, the inspectors involved seem to be overworked or undervalued or have some sort of problem in their ability to do the job that existing law is asking them to do and that I think all Australians are asking them to do. Australians are asking them to promote Aussie jobs. That is what is really at the heart of what we are debating today. To clarify that point: if what we are really debating has nothing to do with 457 visas, if we really are debating or setting up a debate over the next three months around Aussie jobs, I have to put on the record that it is a bit of a no-brainer. I think every single person in this chamber supports Aussie jobs. I am going to a jobs expo tomorrow in my electorate. I have worked tirelessly with a range of stakeholders locally on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales to promote not only a reduction in unemployment, which is now down to record low levels on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, but also strategies to deal with some of the more problematic issues around participation rates and those broader long-term unemployment issues in our local communities. So there is no question that I or any other member in this chamber values and supports Australian jobs first. As many here also know, I am a 100 per cent supporter of the Australian education system and the skills and training that is needed to address our skills shortage in Australia. That is a no-brainer, and I am pleased the minister in the chair smiles at that comment because we have had many conversations—in fact we were just having a conversation about this very issue—about the importance of delivering equity in education at a secondary level, a vocational level and a tertiary level. I think the government has done some fantastic work in that area. In fact if we are talking of legacies, that has the great potential to be the legacy of the 43rd Parliament. Out of all the reforms that have been done, it is the delivery of the principle and value of equity in our education system to engage all Australians, no matter the colour of their skin, no matter the money in the pocket, no matter the location they live, that I think has seen some tremendous work. That is not in doubt here either. What is in doubt is this: if we make a change to 457 visas, does that fix anything? Does it fix our skills shortage? Does it actually deal with the problems that have been raised via emails, where certain people seem to be saying, 'I don't have a job and I know anecdotally of someone in business who was saying they just got a foreign worker in from overseas, so please support this legislation'? Come on. Our process needs to have a bit more integrity than that if we are going to really delve down into what exactly is the problem that we are trying to fix. My reason for voting against this is not necessarily that there are not business sponsors who may be taking advantage of this application form process. My reason for voting against this is this application form process is fine when you read the obligations and the sanctions and the penalties that are available to the minister and the department. My reason for voting against this is we do not need new law; we need existing law to be acted upon. We need, frankly, the harden-up message of delivering on the existing sanctions and the existing penalties that are in the existing form and the existing process if government truly is aware of problems in our business community and in the Australian employment market. This is not about legislation; this is about existing laws. This is about resourcing a department. This is about the department having the backbone to follow up on the issues involved if they do exist. And this is about them doing the job on behalf of the Australian people and Australian taxpayers: chasing down the business sponsors who may be doing the wrong thing; using the laws and powers they have to place the sanctions and penalties on them, to send the message out that that is not the point of this exercise, that Aussie jobs do matter, if we are serious about that; and getting on with fixing the skills shortage that this country has got but that it should not have, and which is a lag on productivity in this country. I do not support this legislation for those reasons. I invite everyone to have a look at the forms that we are talking about and to ask themselves whether the obligations and the sanctions and the penalties need to be somehow strengthened and, if so, outline what that strengthening is. At this stage it looks pretty clear to me, and I encourage the government to use the powers they have. 11:08 Mr JENKINS HH4 Scullin To allow the sun to shine in, I was wondering whether the member for Lyne would allow me to ask a question of him under sessional order 142A about his speech in this second reading debate? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Does the member for Lyne accept the member for Scullin's request for a question under sessional order 142A? Mr Oakeshott IYS I would welcome, I think, the first use of this question-in-second-reading-speeches idea that came in at the start of the 43rd Parliament. I very much invite the former Speaker to ask his question. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I will give the member for Scullin the call. Mr JENKINS HH4 As long as it is not counted in my 30 seconds. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT May I add that I also welcome the debut of the question. Mr JENKINS HH4 I apologise to the member for Lyne. He is the bronze medal winner. I have already delivered my gold and silver medals in this category, and I have now managed to be deflected from my very incisive question, but I will get to it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member for Scullin will get to the question. Mr Jenkins HH4 I thank you for your guidance, Deputy Speaker. I ask the member for Lyne: in his research and investigation, whether he has gone beyond form 1196N and really looked at the legislative base for the obligations that are on the form. What has been put to us here is, on balance, that there are insufficient legislative mechanisms and insufficient investigatory measures available. If we look to the extension of inspectorates into fair work and other inspectors, I think that there is more meat to this proposal than meets the eye, that there is too much deregulation in 2001. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member for Scullin will get to the question. The member for Lyne has the call. 11:09 Mr OAKESHOTT IYS Lyne As someone who negotiated this change in 2010, I cannot actually recall how long I have got to respond. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT You have got two minutes. Mr OAKESHOTT IYS If a former Speaker, the member for Scullin, is arguing a case that there is some sort of inability for a minister to use current sanctions and penalties, if that is the real issue, then I would welcome that as the discussion that we all have as members of parliament. But that is not what is being bowled up before the chamber today. What is being bowled up before the chamber today is, in my view—and as one MP, the limited research that any of us can do to the best of our ability—a separate idea to that. It is a very valuable conversation that we could and should have. What is being bowled up is a return of labour market testing that was removed in 2001 for, for all I can see, very valued reasons to improve and streamline our processes of government on behalf of not only business but taxpayers in meeting skills shortages. I do not think that the case is mounted as to why we are going backwards rather than forwards in developing new standards in the legislative base—I think that was the term that the member for Scullin used. My point is that I think that the legislative base is fine. From what I can see, if there are cases of business sponsors misusing or rorting, then let us chase them down with the laws that we have got. The sanctions and penalties are clear. If it is a resourcing issue, let us resource properly, and let us send the dogs onto those who are breaking the law. (Time expired) 11:10 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins While the member for Lyne is in the chamber, I want to say that I do not often compliment him; I do not often do that in this place. Let me say that that is the finest speech I have heard him deliver in this chamber, and I would say to him that others should review and listen to his very eloquent speech delivered on this bill. The Prime Minister, in her Press Club address earlier in the year, said that there would be days for governing. If that is what this is, I think the legitimate question can be asked: governing for whom? This bill should give some very strong clues. This bill, and other bills, that the government is trying to ram through the parliament in the dying days of this government follows on from previous bills that were rammed through last week that give additional union powers for right of entry to ensure that union members can come into workplaces, speak to employees in their lunch rooms to try and join them up to the union. Not only that, we saw last week that there was a bill that allowed for union members to be flown around the country to remote locations and to have that paid for by the employer—their flights, accommodation and all the rest—so that they could join up union members in workplaces. This legislation is also driven by the union movement's demands. Let me quote from the ACTU Secretary, Dave Oliver, who said of these 457 visas: This is nothing short of a racket involving migration agents, involving loan sharks, involving shonky employers that are exploiting workers on our shores, which is just totally unacceptable. He went on to talk about the fact that 457 workers face losing their jobs for being off work, being ill or engaging with unions, and then he said: They are threatened that if they speak out at any stage well they'll be sacked, and under the current scheme in 30 days they're deported. The vice president of the ALP and the secretary of the Transport Union Workers, Tony Sheldon, talked about these 457 visas and said that it is essentially engaging in human trafficking and a form of slavery. He says that if you are trafficking people into this country to exploit them against the standards and ethics and legal requirements of this country, the appropriate title is human trafficking. These are quite strange statements when you examine them, and when you examine that there are, as the member for Lyne has rightly pointed out, already obligations on employers with sanctions and penalties that can be enforced against any exploitation. Certainly, on this side of chamber we do not support that. This focus on foreign workers, on foreign workers somehow taking Australian jobs, is curious when you consider that Tony Sheldon, one of the main architects of the bill that is before the parliament right now, has three people in his union who are on 457 visas. So it is a bit of a case of 'do not what I do but just simply do as I say'. His chief of staff, his media officer and his senior organiser are all on 457 visas because apparently he could not find anybody suitably qualified in Australia to do those jobs. This is at a time when he says 457 visas are 'harming the community'. It is also curious that the Prime Minister would bring forward this bill when in her office she has her senior communications adviser here—you guessed it—on a 457 visa. One can only ask the question: why is it then that the government is bringing forward this bill? It is a union demand, and that is very clear. Is it because the union movement gives such significant donations to the Labor side of politics? Is it because the union leadership helped the architects of the removal of the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, with one of them, Paul Howse, actually going on television saying that he had in fact been part of that decision to install Julia Gillard as Prime Minister? Is it because we have paid union organisers, paid for by the union membership of the Australian workers, working for the Labor Party during election campaigns? Is it for these reasons that we see this bill before the parliament? Well, one can only ask the questions. The government say that there is a significant problem with 457 visas. They claim, and the minister has claimed this on a number of occasions, that there have been 10,000 cases of abuse. When he was asked to justify this quiet extraordinary claim and when he was asked for the evidence, he had to walk away from that claim. He said actually it was just a forecast, not based on any evidence but simply a forecast. I suppose he was really taking a leaf out of Treasurer Wayne Swan's book here as he likes to pronounce forecasts and his forecasts are never usually terribly accurate. When the minister was asked if there had been any reports done on this and if there was any evidence from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship of widespread abuse and rorting, the clear answer to that question was no. When you turn to groups and ask the Australian Industry Group or the Migration Council Australia if there is any evidence to suggest that there has been widespread abuse and rorting, the answer again is no. When you ask a member of the government's own Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration, Professor Peter McDonald, whether or not there has been any widespread abuse and rorting, again clearly the answer is no. So where there is no evidence to support the claim that has been made by the minister and by the government to bring forward this legislation before the parliament, one can only really be reminded of that great Australian film, The Castle, where Dennis Denuto was before the judge and was asked, 'Well, where is the evidence for this?' and he shrugged and said, 'Well, look, it is simply the vibe.' So one can only think that the minister has channelled the vibe and because of this we are seeing very damaging legislation being brought before us here today. We on this side of the chamber are equally concerned about workers, whether they are Australian or they are foreign, being abused and being ripped off. Nobody would sanction that, which is why we have laws in place already to deal with that. But I suppose if the members opposite are concerned about rip-offs and abuses—abuses of power, abuses of funds, abuses of workers—perhaps they ought to look a little bit closer to home and I suggest they start with the Health Services Union, which have now had a number of reports into them whereby even members of this place have been accused of abusing union funds for their own gain. So if they are concerned about rackets and if they are concerned about abuse, I suspect and think that they should look a little bit closer to home. What we have seen from the government is a very irresponsible campaign to demonise foreign workers and they have done that through statements made by the minister and by the Prime Minister and members of this government. It is grossly irresponsible and, dare I say it, it has been verging at times on being racist. The government wants to make significant changes in this bill to bring forward market testing. To explain this to those who are in the chamber today, currently there is no market testing needed when somebody is brought in on a 457 visa. You simply have to check whether or not the occupation has been listed on the consolidated skills occupation list, and this gets changed from time to time. It is updated by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, based on advice from Skills Australia, to make sure that we are responding in the most responsible way to the needs of the Australian community and the needs of the workforce. This bill will bring forward new market testing, with new onerous obligations that will be imposed on businesses when they bring in somebody on a 457 visa. These are new compliance obligations and new imposts on business. So, given that these are significant new obligations and new imposts and they will have significant costs, one would expect that there would be a regulatory impact statement, a RIS. This is something that is required of every piece of legislation brought into the parliament, but not in this case with a union piece of legislation—no, there are exceptions for such pieces. In fact, the Prime Minister has waived the need for a regulation impact statement. She has said instead that it is not necessary to have a RIS. Why would that be? I think that that would be perhaps because it would not withstand scrutiny to have a RIS. This government has been quite extraordinary in bringing new obligations to business. As deputy chair of the coalition's Deregulation Taskforce I have travelled the country, I have spoken with businesses, and I have seen with my own eyes the amount of regulation and red tape that they have had to cope with, largely as a result of new regulations and bills brought forward by this government. There have been more than 23,000 new regulations imposed by this government since 2007. Is it any wonder that our businesses are suffering and that, as a result, jobs suffer? With these extra costs and obligations it will, of course, cost businesses in terms of time. The whole point of skilled migration is to be able to have a flexible market—to ensure that we are able to respond in a timely fashion to the needs of business so that we can continue to grow our economy and continue to more broadly grow jobs and opportunities for all. Our skilled migration process has been essential throughout our history to our economic success and to our economy. You only need to look back at the Snowy Mountains scheme to know that this scheme was largely delivered by migrant workers. Today we know that there are so many people who come here on 457 visas for a period of time to help contribute to our economy. I think of Victoria in the great success that we have had both as a state and as a nation in breakthroughs—in cutting-edge research—with our scientists and medical researchers. We have a number of people here on 457 visas doing this important work that puts Australia at the forefront. Yet this government would jeopardise that with this bill. This government would put a stop to that with this bill. The 457 visas have been a major component of the skilled migration program. This program is temporary. That is quite an important point to note. We bring workers in when they are needed and when they are not needed, we don't. This program needs to have that flexibility. And let us not demonise the people who choose to come here and work in Australia, because these people pay taxes. They bring their families, they pay for their own welfare, their health needs, their education needs. They do all of that. They make a contribution to our economy. In the time remaining let me say that it is important that we have a skilled migration program that has integrity. We do not want to see abuses or exploitation occur, but as the member for Lyne so rightly pointed out, we have these protections in place under the current laws that are available right now. It is the government that actually cut the compliance—not the opposition, but the government. So if there is a problem, and of course there has been no evidence presented that there is, then it is a problem of the government's own creation and they ought to take responsibility for that. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. Homelessness Bill 2013, Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 6469

Homelessness Bill 2013

Homelessness (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013

Reference to Federation Chamber 6469 11:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That the bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 6469 BUSINESS Orders of the Day 6469 11:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That the following Federation Chamber orders of the day, private members' business, be returned to the House for further consideration and the resumption of each debate made an order of the day for a later hour this day: No. 6—Sugar industry; No. 11—Chemotherapy drugs; No. 13—University funding; and No. 15—Proposed East West Link in Melbourne. Question agreed to. BILLS 6469 BILLS Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013 6469

Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013

Reference to Federation Chamber 6469 11:27 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That in respect of the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013: (1) the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration; and (2) so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the resolution fixing the resumption of debate for the next sitting being rescinded and the debate being adjourned to a later hour this day. Question agreed to. Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 6469

Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6469 11:28 Mr CRAIG THOMSON HVZ Dobell Suffice it to say that it is quite an extraordinary parliament, isn't it, when we hear the debate that has gone on today in relation to migration, immigration, 457 visas, border control—all of those things generally. Quite frankly we have a Labor government that has excised Australia from Australia, even though back in 2006 some of the very same members were arguing against this position, which I find quite extraordinary. We now have an opposition claiming that the government is demonising foreign workers through the 457 visas. I am speechless, almost, even though it I am on my feet to speak about this issue. If there has ever been a party that has demonised foreign workers, asylum seekers more than the opposition, I would like to see it. This is the party that says, 'We choose who comes here!' They had big posters and signs up around the electorate, and here they are now as the friend of foreign workers! It is quite extraordinary that this parliament is in such a state that we see both sides making political points rather than looking at what the legislation is, what the real issues here are and what the solutions to them are. I came to this debate very neutral. I did not have a particular view. I saw the competing arguments, and I think the competing arguments can be summarised pretty much as, 'Are we putting more red tape and regulation and more onerous positions on business by requiring checking and market testing before they get 457 visas?' versus, 'Do we give the benefit of the doubt to an Aussie worker?' That seems to me to be where this debate is and where you draw the line on it. From my position, the benefit of the doubt would always go to the Aussie worker. If that means that a business has to go out there and market-test to see whether there is someone out there who can fill the job, terrific. I think that is a good thing, and I find it extraordinary that we have the opposition out there arguing that this is some huge burden on business. For goodness sake! Can they come up with some better areas of red tape where there are burdens on employers rather than this? It is quite extraordinary that this is a big issue for them in terms of where there is a huge, onerous burden on business. It is just a nonsense of an argument that they have. What I did, though, was also go out to my electorate and say, 'What's your view on this? These are the competing views.' I represent an electorate that has higher unemployment than most. We are an area that was one of 10 across Australia that the Labor government has recognised as needing extra assistance in terms of employment services to get people back into jobs. So giving Australians—people who live here—the first chance at a job is something that is pretty high on the priority list in my electorate. But I thought I would test it, because it is fair enough to say, 'Is this going to stop people from being employed?' I have not found one person in my electorate who does not think this is a good idea. In fact, what I have found is that most people are stunned that this is not the situation already. So this confected argument that we are having here from the opposition is just a political argument to try to cause political damage to the government. It is not about the issues at all. I also listened to the member for Lyons. I always listen to the member for Lyons when he gets up to speak, because he often has some very interesting and thoughtful things to say. His argument is that it is not necessary, because there are already regulations that can cover this. That might be the case, but aren't we prepared, on an issue like this, to say that the benefit of the doubt should go to the Australian worker? That is what this is about. Let's go out there and test. If the member for Lyons is right and this legislation goes through, so what? Honourable members: Lyne. Mr CRAIG THOMSON HVZ Lyne. So what? I think the member for Lyons would agree with me too, but he is probably bound by a caucus decision, unlike the member for Lyne. But so what? We then have an extra requirement—not an extraordinarily onerous one—for an employer to market-test. Is this such a heinous imposition that we are going to be putting on employers? I do not think so. One of the other issues that show why the opposition have taken this as just a political debate is their insistence on trying to categorise this legislation as a piece of union legislation. I know quite a few union officials and have spent some time there. The No. 1 issue for the union movement is not stopping 457 visas. If the government were about trying to put up legislation that was to give a leg-up or a hand-up to the union movement, I do not think the leaders of the ACTU would be rushing there and saying, 'Look, the one thing you can do for us is put up the 457 legislation, because that's a terrific thing that's going to ensure the survival of the union movement for the next 30, 40 or 50 years.' This is just about playing the politics in terms of this. But what is wrong with a union or the union movement having a view on employment matters? There seems to be a view from the opposition that, because the union movement has a view on employment matters, this is some great conspiracy that is wrapped around the government and is forcing them to take a particular position on this legislation. I think you would expect the union movement to have a position on employment matters, as you would expect the Business Council to have a view in relation to business. What can we expect? That the government will come in here and say: 'Oh my goodness! There's a piece of legislation that the opposition are supporting because the Business Council have said it's a good idea. This is some sort of rort for the Business Council'? This is a ridiculous argument and is an indictment of the way this parliament is now operating: it is just about the politics. We really do need to get back to what is going to work—what is a feasible proposition. As I said at the start of my contribution, if the choice is between slightly more onerous requirements for employers in terms of market-testing whether there are Australian workers available and giving the benefit of the doubt to Aussie workers having an opportunity for employment that they may lose then surely everyone in this chamber, in the dark hours of the night, with their hand on their heart, would say, 'We should be giving the benefit of the doubt to the Australian worker.' The fact that we are having this argument shows that this place has descended to such a state that we will manufacture arguments entirely for political gain and political purposes, and I think that is terribly sad. The member for Higgins, in her contribution, also spoke about a labour market needing to be flexible. My view, in terms of government regulation, always is that government should only regulate a market where there is unfairness, potential unfairness or a failure in the market. If you took the position of the member for Higgins through to its conclusion in terms of offering the greatest flexibility, you would not have a Fair Work Commission, you would not have wages that are negotiated in any way collectively. It would be entirely up to the market as to how these things are set. I am sure there are some on this side who hanker for that to be the actual position but that is not the tradition in Australia. It never has been. The tradition in Australia has been to make sure there is some balance and fairness and that there is a fair go for all. Flexibility always has to be balanced with fairness. The issue of fairness here is making sure that the benefit of the doubt in relation to a potential job is given first to the Australians who work here. I think that is where you balance the fairness in terms of what is there. In my electorate only last week I was able to secure $2.7 million for a skills centre. There is never a magic bullet for employment issues and getting people back into jobs. I do not think I have heard anyone from the government side in this debate say, 'We tighten up 457 visas, this is nirvana for Australian workers.' But it is part of what needs to be done as in my electorate, where I was able to get $2.7 million for a skills centre which is going to be set up in the Wyong Shire. Young people are going to be given the opportunity that they would not have had without that investment of money to start in a job, trade, apprenticeship or certificate type training on the job at a skills centre. The reason I go back to my electorate is that it is electorates like mine, which have high unemployment and even higher youth unemployment, which are going to be most unfairly treated if, on balance, the benefit of the doubt does not go to the Australian worker. This legislation is important to that, along with a whole raft of other measures that are needed. If everyone in this chamber is genuine about this issue, they will say this is not going to fix unemployment, this is not going to do all those sorts of things. But in some cases it will. I had a constituent come and see me last week while I was sounding out my electorate as to what they thought about this legislation. This constituent came in to talk to me about employment in her industry and the use of 457 visas and the effect that it was having on opportunities for young Central Coast workers. Her view quite clearly was that things like giving the benefit of the doubt first to the Australian worker—making sure that employers first test to see if any are available—are some of the most important things that can be done. I came to this debate without a view but have gone to the electorate, have spoken to people and taken the position that I would support this legislation and then, as more and people spoke to me quite strongly about their position in this, felt that I needed also to contribute to the debate. I have been horrified at the standard of argument that we have had from the opposition on this issue. I do not have an issue with them if the whole argument that is being put is this is going to cause all sorts of terrible issues for the employer. Make that case out, run that argument. I do not even have a problem with the argument of flexibility. Let us just argue where that line is drawn. But this absolute nonsense that we are getting that this is some sort of union plot to fix up declining union membership is just an absolute nonsense. This opposition can never stand in this place or any place else and say, 'We are worried about the demonisation of foreign workers,' given their consistent position—one that has been followed by this side of the House as well—on asylum seekers. This is not groundbreaking legislation, but it is important legislation, and it is legislation that should be supported. 11:42 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I rise to follow the member for Dobell in this debate. I remind the member that he left the Labor Party and the government to sit as an Independent in this place because of his view that the government is not a competent government and it does not meet the standards that the Australian people expect of governance in Australia today. This Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 is yet another example of that. Not only have we heard this ridiculous contention that 547 visas or skilled migration workers are taking Australian jobs but we have also heard a minister and a government deceitfully claim figures that do not exist and arguments that are not real in an attempt to pit Australian against Australian. We see from the member for Dobell a false argument in the sense that he says, 'Well, in the immigration program, asylum seekers are not being dealt with fairly yet we are allowing skilled migrant to come to this country.' It is true to say that most of the Australian population felt most confident about our immigration regime at the height of the Howard government's successful border protection regime. That is what all the statistics show. People felt most confident about immigration in this country and our immigration program which was substantially increased, especially in the categories of skilled migration, when the government had effective control of the borders and who came here. That is the best way to build confidence in your migration program. The 457 visas in this Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 were introduced in 1996 in the Howard government. They are there to meet shortages and skills gaps in industries that exist today—gaps that have to be filled to enable companies, corporations and businesses to meet the demand in the economy at the moment. It is not a solution to say we will train people up for these jobs, because the demands are there now. Filling those demands with skilled migrants does not take away Australian jobs. Filling those demands with skilled migrants from overseas allows those businesses to continue to succeed, which creates more jobs, more wealth and more prosperity right now. So this fallacious argument from the government that this is about taking Australian jobs bells the cat about what is really going on with this legislation. It is of course the unions behind this legislation. We are in the last days of a government—a very bad government, one that I think many people would acknowledge is the singular worst government in Australian history and probably for many decades and centuries to come—in this parliament. It is so bad that in the last days of this parliament and, potentially, of this government, all we see is legislation designed to try to get a poll bounce—measures implemented to cement unions in leadership struggles, which unions on which leader's side in the Labor Party. The victim, of course, is the integrity of the Australian immigration program. We want skilled migrants to come to this country. We want businesses to have flexibility in the migration program to be able to say: 'We can't fill this category of worker right now. We need to grab some from overseas to keep our business and our projects going.' It works well. The government has made no substantive case for why it is not working well. Of course there will be abuses of any single migration category. Of course there will be problems. But then what do the government say to their own measures which have reduced the amount of money available for compliance in their budget cuts? On one hand they have cut money available for DIAC's compliance and on the other they have said, 'Well, there are some abuses going on, so therefore we need to change the system.' The coalition has said quite separately that we will take and support any measure that improves the integrity of the system. That is our position. But we know what is going on here and what the government is all about. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship came forward and said there had been 10,000 cases—he put a figure on it—suggesting that he had some detailed evidence provided to him by inquiry, the Migration Council, somebody or anybody. He was then and is now unable to substantiate 10,000 abuses. It suggests that the government clearly has this very wrong and there is no evidence to support such claims. The government's approach has been strongly criticised. It has been criticised rightly by industry groups, who need flexibility to keep our economy turning over; labour market experts; the Migration Council of Australia; and the government's own advisers. Everyone states there is no evidence to back up widespread rorting claims being made. If the government were serious about this matter or training people up to meet skills shortages in the economy, they would be addressing the VET sector. They would be addressing how we spend money in education and training. They would be doing those things in a coherent and proper way to ensure we have greater capacity and more people trained up in areas of skills shortages for the future. It is not really a valid approach to do what they are doing—to undermine the integrity of the migration system and the immigration process in Australia. Their language and rhetoric have been so inflated and conflated, but I guess that is situation normal for this government. Everything has to be the biggest. Everything has to be the most historic initiative. The rorts have to be the most widespread we have ever seen. It has to be 10,000; it cannot be 1,000. It must be huge. It must be bigger. If you can think big, you have to think very big. And of course they failed to achieve all of their benchmarks and their initiatives because the scope of what they set out to do is completely wrong. The scope of what they are setting out to do in this bill is again pretty wrong. We support robust integrity in the 457 program and we support measures that would strengthen the problem. But, in an attempt to justify the comments, Minister O'Connor referred in the House to a Department of Immigration and Citizenship document on strengthening the integrity of the 457 program. The document the minister referred to, of course, did not show any widespread abuses or rorters. I have heard many members of the Labor Party refer to these problems as small. I was on Lunchtime Agenda yesterday with Senator Lisa Singh from the Labor Party, and she referred to this problem as 'a minor problem with 457 visas'. I think she understood that she had made an error in the Labor Party dogmatic system by saying something out of the prescribed form of words, as she sought to correct it, but she saw it as of a minor nature. Senator Lisa Singh is a Tasmanian senator of Indian descent. I know that she may consider this to be a problem of a minor nature because the figures about 457 grants are quite interesting. The biggest growth in 457 visas being granted in Australia today—of the top 15 citizenship countries for primary applications in 2012-13—is from India. That is about 20.5 per cent. I know, coming from Western Sydney, that there are seats across Western Sydney that deeply resent this bill and the implications of the government in putting this bill forward. They are somehow doing the wrong thing. Just because we are sourcing people from India and other places to fill skills shortages in our economy, the government is now saying those people are taking Australian jobs. Each one of those people I meet, whether it be in Lindsay, Chifley, Parramatta—all these seats across Western Sydney—are working very hard. They are model migrants. They are the kinds of people you want to come to this country, that work for a living, generating an income. I find that people's biggest and deepest concern about the migration program here in Australia is that, when people come here, they will end up on the welfare system, not making a contribution. So what is the setting that this government wants to send to all of those migrants from India coming here and working so hard in places like Western Sydney? We do not want them to end up on the welfare program; we want them to work for a living. We want them to be part of the great story of skilled migration to this country that has benefited our country so overwhelmingly with the new skills, talents and mix of people from around the world. And working, of course, is the best way to validate the integrity of the migration system. But from the government we have this dog-whistling on the behalf of the unions to suggest that these people are somehow doing the wrong thing. They are not taking Australian jobs; they are contributing to the Australian economy and to keeping the ability of business to have flexibility. That is where the arguments of the Labor Party and the member for Dobell in this place, I think, come a cropper, because they argue that this is about a secret industrial relations agenda and that this is somehow stealing Australian jobs, but also allowing for flexibility in the workplace. You cannot argue that there should not be any flexibility for business in the Australian industrial relations system and then deny businesses the ability to meet workplace shortages in our economy. We have to meet these shortages. If these businesses do not meet these shortages and are unable to keep projects going in our country, all of us will suffer, there will be less employment for all Australians and there will be less prosperity. The provisions of this bill and the concerns articulated by the government are deeply troubling for the coalition. We supported the 457 skilled migration visa system, and it has worked very well. It has worked well from an industry point of view. It has worked well from the Migration Council's point of view. It has worked well for all Australians and it has not attempted, in any way, to detract from Australian employment. In fact, you could argue overwhelmingly that it has enhanced employment and increased employment opportunity for Australians, as well as provided for skilled migrants to come to this country. Once again from the government, we see this attempt to divide Australians—this awful and pathetic attempt to say that, just because you have come from overseas to work in a skilled migration spot, somehow you have taken an Australian job. I reject that notion. You can go to any part of Western Sydney and find communities who have come here on skilled visas and ended up migrating here legally and lawfully. They are welcome because they contribute to our society. They contribute not just through their skilled migration visa when they are meeting a worker shortage but in a meaningful way as a part of the depth and breadth of our community. If the government could get the borders under control and rein in the arrival of illegal people by boat, there would be a lot more confidence in our migration system generally. But what a government should not do at any time is seek to actively undermined confidence in the migration system and immigration. We are a nation of immigrants. We rely on migration, and skilled migration is overwhelmingly the best system for Australia to meet its workplace shortages. 11:55 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill and I commend the previous speaker for his contribution. Australia is a country of migrants—we always have been; we always will be. Ever since the First Fleet turned up in 1788, we have been a nation of immigrants. The people who drove the bullet trains across the Blue Mountains were not born in this country. The people who herded the sheep and cattle on our great plains were not, by and large, born in this country. Some of the Aboriginal stockman were, but, by and large, the people who developed our great pastoral industries in the 19th century were not Australian-born. The people who came to this country in the 1850s and the 1860s to develop the mining industry were not born here. But they became absolutely outstanding Australian, because they came to this country with a dream to build a better future for them and their children. They saw this country as a great land of opportunity. It was then; it is today. The marvellous thing about this country of ours, almost unique across the world, is that people have come to this country from an extraordinary diversity of backgrounds, cultures, races and religions and made a home here. They have contributed to the richness of a diverse, yet cohesive, society. This is almost unique in the countries of the world. People have come here and left their antagonisms behind because of the gravitational pull of our culture and because of the genial quality of the Australian way. It is a heroic dimension to our national life, and long may it continue. Six million of us were born overseas, but those six million came to this country to make a life, to work hard and to build a nation. The thing which is troubling about this legislation and the messages that we are getting from senior members of the current government is this suggestion that people who come to this country to work and to pay taxes are somehow stealing our jobs. This is a contemptible suggestion. It is a contemptible and false suggestion. People who come to this country to work and pay taxes from day 1 are not stealing our jobs, they are building our nation. That is what they are doing. That is why the coalition is so concerned about this bill and the general messages that we are getting from the government on this issue. It has not always been this way. When the previous minister, Mr Bowen, was the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, he quite rightly praised skilled immigration. In the middle of 2011 he said: And anyone who tries to tell you the 457 visa program is not working, needs to take another look at the facts. That is what I respectfully suggest that members opposite should do: take another look at the facts. The facts are that this program has been good for Australia. It was good for Australia when the Howard government started it; it was good for Australia when the current government continued it. It was good for Australia then; it is good for Australia now, and it should not be tampered with or undermined by members opposite. But we all know why this is happening. It is happening because this government has a political problem. So never mind the facts; never mind that everyone who has seriously looked at this knows that the system is working well and if there are one or two problems or abuses they can be sorted out in the normal course of events; never mind that this government which is now complaining about 457 visa entrance has actually increased 457 visa entrant numbers to an all-time record in the last financial year of some 120,000. Never mind the facts, the government has got a political problem. So what do they do? Yet again, they look for someone to blame. They look for more people to demonise in their attempt to hold onto office. Yes, this government has a serious political problem on its hands. It is the border protection disaster, which has meant that since August 2008 we have had more than 700 illegal boats and more than 44,000 illegal arrivals by boats, a problem that this government cannot solve, a problem that this government has effectively surrendered to the people smugglers. So what do they do? They could address the real problem, but instead they have decided to raise a false problem. Instead of tackling the real problem of boat people and people smuggling, they are attacking the false problem of people here on 457 visas. They cannot get tough on illegal arrivals by boat so they have decided to get tough on legal arrivals by plane. They cannot stop people coming to this country illegally and unsafely by boat so they are going to get tough on people coming to this country legally and safely, and working and paying taxes from day one. It is a shame. It is a tragedy for our country that we have come to such a pass under such a government. What this government is doing is so transparent. That is why Dr Peter McDonald, one of our leading demographers and a long-time adviser to governments including this government, has described what the government is doing here as 'nasty'. That is why one of the honourable members opposite—and I do mean honourable member opposite—the member for Hotham, Simon Crean, has said that what the government is doing here is simply 'dog-whistling'. And I say to the minister at the table, a decent man: surely, if the Prime Minister is not better than this, you ought to be better than this and the government should not be further proceeding down this embarrassing path. It is not just the fact that the government is dog-whistling, as the member for Hotham says; it is not just the fact that the government is addressing a non-problem, there is also the element of hypocrisy here—complete hypocrisy. I have got nothing against the Prime Minister having someone working in her own office on a 457 visa. If he is the only person who can do the job, fair enough, and for all I know, there was not a single Australian capable of giving adequate political advice to the current Prime Minister. For all I know, not a single Australian wanted the job. So I have got absolutely nothing against the Prime Minister having someone in her office on a 457 visa. I do not say that that person is stealing the job of an Australian. I assume that that person is making a unique and special contribution to our country. But, if it is right in the Prime Minister's office, why is it not right for the other employers in this country? If the Prime Minister did not have to advertise, if the Prime Minister did not have to engage in six months of labour-market testing, why should every other employer in this country? It is wrong in principle, it is demonising decent Australians and yet again it is illustrating the hypocrisy of this Prime Minister. The first law of good government is 'govern for all Australians'. The first rule for anyone who would be Prime Minister of this country is that you have to grow in the job. It is all right being a tribal chief as a party leader, but once you become the Prime Minister of this country, you have to be a leader for our nation; you have to be a Prime Minister for all of us. And that is the problem with this Prime Minister. Whatever lip-service she might have paid to this notion in practice—whenever it has served her political purposes to divide our nation, whether it is on the basis of class, gender and now country of birth—she has taken that path. It is just not good enough. We saw about 15 years ago a member of this parliament set out to divide this country. We saw a member of this parliament set out to make perfectly decent Australians feel like strangers in their own country, and I never thought I would see the day when it would not just be an independent member of parliament, a disendorsed member of a political party, but the Prime Minister of this country setting out to deliberately divide Australian from Australian to serve a political purpose. It is an embarrassment. That is the best you can say about it, that it is an embarrassment. Many people right around this country are saying that it is worse than that. Members opposite are saying that it is worse than that, and who knows what action they might take to try to ensure that we do not for very much longer have a Prime Minister who is deliberately setting out to divide our country. It was the great Dr Johnson who said a long time ago that 'patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel'. Everyone in this chamber, including the Prime Minister, loves our country. But true love for this country is expressed by trying to unite us, not by setting out to divide us. True love for our country, true patriotism, means putting the nation first. That is what it means; not trying desperately to cling to office using ever more desperate stratagems to cling to office, as this Prime Minister is now. This bill is yet another manifestation of the desperate stratagems that this Prime Minister has sunk to in her desire to cling to office. This bill is false patriotism from a failing government, and that is why it should not be proceeded with. The people of this country appreciate that which has made us what we are. The people of this country understand that our people have come from everywhere, and what unites them now is a desire to work together to build a better Australia. We appreciate our debt to the migrants of this country. We welcome everyone who is prepared to come to this country the right way; to join the team, to work and to pay taxes from day 1. Never, never, never, will you find from this coalition any attempt to say that there are first-class and second-class Australians: first-class Australians who were born here; second-class Australians who were not. I am proud of the diversity of this coalition. I am proud of the fact that we are embracing the Australian people, regardless of background, religion and regardless of where they have come from. I humbly submit to members opposite that it is not too late for them to stand up for decency and do the same. 12:09 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is always a pleasure to follow the opposition leader, whose wise words today should be followed and adhered to particularly when it comes to 457 visa arrangements. He of course is correct in what he says. Agriculture and food production are all about skilled labour. The opposition leader, who has been to my electorate and who has listened to my people, very much knows the value of 457 visas to agriculture and food production not just in the Riverina but, indeed, right across Australia. The 457 visa is a hallmark of skilled labour in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area, which makes up the majority of the western half of my Riverina electorate. This plan by the Labor government to rush through changes to the 457 visa system is testament again to just how out of touch it is with rural and regional areas. These 457 visas are for skilled workers from outside Australia who have been sponsored and nominated by business to work in Australia on a temporary basis. They are not, as Labor would have you believe, part of a rorted system which leaves willing and skilled Australians without employment. Instead, they are an integral component of the harvests of many farmers I represent. Whether those farmers are citrus growers, grain growers—you name it—skilled labour from overseas is what ensures Australian food is placed on the dinner tables of Australian families, and many others too. The shadow minister for immigration, Scott Morrison, put it aptly at the doors to parliament on Tuesday morning when he said that this is 'an attack on skilled workers'. He was right. This Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill seeks to amend the Migration Act to make seven main changes. First, this bill seeks to reinforce the obligations of employer sponsors of 457 visas. Second, it wants to make prescribed classes of sponsors undertake labour market testing for Australian workers before employers can seek to hire someone from overseas using the 457 visa program. Third, it seeks to require employers to demonstrate that they have undertaken labour market testing and provide for exceptions from labour market testing in some circumstances. Fourth, it will enshrine the kind of sponsorship obligations that the minister must ensure are prescribed in regulations. Fifth, this bill wants to give Fair Work inspectors the necessary power under the Migration Act to give them access to employer premises for the purposes of the act. Sixth, it will allow those same inspectors to determine whether an employer has contravened or broken a civil penalty provision or any other employer sanction provision. And finally, this bill seeks to extend the period available to an employee to seek new sponsored employment to 98 days, amending the current provision of 28 days. Yet despite all the huff and the puff of the government and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Brendan O'Connor, being quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday, saying that he is 'tired of being told they don't have evidence' of rorting within the system, the response to these changes has been almost universally negative. This is particularly true of my constituents in the Riverina. I think particularly of Mark Hoskinson, a grain grower from Kikoira in the far north-west of my Riverina electorate, who told me that overseas skilled labour is what made his winter harvest possible. Through a company named Odysee-Agri in France, Mr Hoskinson has had three French agricultural science students come to Australia and work on his property during harvest. This week there are eight of these agriculture students in the far west region of the Riverina. These students, Mr Hoskinson told me, have all grown up on farms in France and are very well aware of the latest developments in agricultural technology and equipment. With good levels of English, Mr Hoskinson said the only challenge the French students found in working on his Riverina property was an adjustment from paddocks the size of 20 acres in France to ones on Mr Hoskinson's property which are closer to 500 acres. But he could not have completed his harvest without them. He could not have got through it. Mr Hoskinson paid each of the students and helped them set up bank and superannuation accounts and was also able to help them with the practical components of their agriculture degrees. Overseas skilled labour such as this, Mr Hoskinson said, is mutually beneficial, not just for him and the students but for anyone who consumes Australian produce. And Mr Hoskinson is right. This is an attack on skilled workers. And skilled workers are what makes many Riverina producers able to feed the nation and the world. We hear a lot from this Labor government about its commitment to food security, to irrigation, to agriculture and to ensuring Australian farmers are competitive within the world market. Indeed, the government recently announced its food plan. I have heard on many occasions the Prime Minister talking about the Asian century. Last year she gave a keynote address at a forum in Melbourne to talk about our unique geographical and climate position to be able to feed the Asian century, to be able to tap into those markets in Asia where they are requiring more protein and where they are requiring more fresh fruit and vegetables—many of which are coming from the Riverina. But we have seen so many times that this Labor government has railed against farming and farmers. We saw it with the live cattle fiasco. We saw it with the Murray-Darling situation, whereby so much of the water that was required for so-called environmental purposes, which would otherwise be used for productive purposes, is now being either stored in the dams or sent down the river and flooding the lower flood plains, and doing nothing really for those supposed water icon sites. This 457 visa legislation proves just how little the Labor Party actually values farming. It is no wonder that commentators and journalists such as Nick Cater in The Australian on 18 June said: …the knowledge gap between city and country has never been wider. Fewer Australians have any experience of the gritty reality of farming. He is right, of course. Like Mr Hoskinson with his advocacy for 457 visa workers on his property, Mr Cater is right in what he says. Not since Federation has a government been so far apart from the reality of farming, what it entails, the value it brings to this nation and the importance of this to put food on the table of Australians and foreigners. All the while, these 457 visas are absolutely critical and necessary to ensuring future production, to ensuring that Australia can take advantage of its unique global position and to ensuring they can take advantage of the clean and green way so farmers, who are the very best environmentalists of the land, can continue to do the work that they have done for generation upon generation. Any attack—and certainly this is an attack—on skilled workers is an attack on the nation's farmers. Put simply, this legislation is a myopic plan from the Labor Party just trying to shore up votes in the western suburbs of Sydney. Have we not seen that over and again in recent times? This legislation is short-sighted. It is rushed. It is bad for Riverina growers. And when it is bad for Riverina growers I will stand up every time and rail against it, because Riverina growers, just like the good farmers in Wannon, need protection. They need help, and this 457 visa legislation is not doing anything to help and preserve the great integrity of Australian farmers or doing anything to enhance their ability to grow food to feed our nation and to feed other nations. I know the member for Wannon is also very worried about what this legislation will do in his part of the world, as he should be. The minister might be tired of being told he does not have the evidence, but the people of the Riverina and the people of Wannon in regional Victoria are tired of Labor's various plans to recapture their heartland in Western Sydney. Labor have betrayed the people of Western Sydney, as they have betrayed the people of Australia with the carbon tax the Prime Minister said would never be part of a government she led. This legislation is an affront to the farmers and associated communities of the Riverina. They are good folk. They do not need to be told continually that they are not doing the right thing by the environment or by Australian workers. They are. They have done it for generations, and they will continue to do it so long as they get good public policy from this place—good public policy which has been lacking since 2007. Section 457 visas are the major source of skilled labour for farmers, and that is the reality. Contrary to what Labor would have you believe, there is simply not the required number of workers to make harvests possible for food producers. We all know that this particular legislation is just kowtowing to union demands. Not only do we know how led by the nose this Labor government is by the union leaders—because most of those opposite have union representation in their DNA and CVs—but we also know that it is not business-friendly. It is certainly not farmer-friendly. All too often we have seen legislation in this place ruled by what those people—those apparatchiks in Sussex Street—say is a good thing for Australia. But it is not a good thing for the Riverina or for regional Australia. It is only the Labor government and its merry band of Green and Independent supporters—who have put agriculture well and truly on the backburner in this parliament—who think that this plan is a good idea. We on this side know that it is not. The 457 visas are designed to provide a quick response to fluctuations in demand for skilled and semiskilled workers. They are not an affront to the virtues of full employment for Australian citizens. They are a critical part of ensuring we can feed the world, and feed it well. It is not just Mark Hoskinson who uses overseas skilled labour as part of his employment strategy during harvest; it is also many citrus growers in the Riverina. Redfern Citrus in Hillston, which is a large orange and other citrus fruit producer in the west of my electorate, uses 457 visas as part of its business plan. For Redfern Citrus, 457s offer willing employees with skilled labour, which helps during harvest. I stress this point further: the recipients of a 457 visa are willing employees with skilled labour. Why else would this short-sighted and illogical Labor plan be so heavily criticised by industry groups, labour market experts and the Migration Council? Labor members have come in here and told us this is a plan to put Australians first—and I am not against putting Australians first—and to ensure the 457 visa system is not rorted by unscrupulous individuals. But some facts must be put on the table. In my Riverina electorate, there is simply not the required number of skilled and willing individuals during harvest time, and as such 457 visas for skilled workers become the only option to get the job done. For growers, farmers and associated communities, the 457 visa system is a harvest's backbone. Anyone who knows anything about small rural and regional communities—and you would have to wonder if there is anyone who fits that bill amongst those opposite—knows that, when these farmers are doing well and the seasons are good, times are also good for associated communities. When there is a good harvest—as many are predicting Riverina grain, rice and cotton growers will have this season, for example—local towns also prosper. A better harvest means more money to be spent in the shops, creating more employment and attracting more people to our smaller towns. Harvests in this part of my electorate simply do not happen without skilled labour, much of which is drawn from 457 visas. So, in a myopic attempt to shore up Western Sydney, the Australian Labor Party—the once great party formed under a tree at Barcaldine, who wanted to make life better for farmers and country towns—has discounted the multiplier effect skilled migration and labour has in many smaller communities. To win a couple of votes in Rooty Hill, the people of Rankins Springs will suffer. To allay concerns in Greenway, it will be the people of Griffith who will bear the brunt. These changes will increase the levels of regulation and allow inspectors onto properties to ensure compliance with the new bureaucracy this bill seeks to implement. The bill seeks to establish the powers of authorised inspectors, and there will be two types of authorised inspectors: compliance staff from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and workplace inspectors from Fair Work Australia. These will come at a cost of $3.4 million to the Australian taxpayer. This is a government which should take agriculture seriously. It does not—certainly not by implementing this particular legislation. I think that this legislation needs to be rejected for the sake of rural and regional Australia, which feeds this nation and many others. 12:2 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I rise to speak against the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. Firstly, what is the need for this bill? We have heard the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship claim that there were 10,000 rorts in the 457 visa. What an embarrassment! The minister has had to admit that he simply plucked that figure out of thin air. What sort of hopeless minister makes up figures without any evidence? Perhaps the minister for immigration has taken inspiration from the Treasurer, because that is how it seems this government works with so many things, and now the minister for immigration is simply plucking numbers out of thin air with no evidence. The other reason we should be opposed to this bill is because of what the government has previously said. I would like to look at a few quotes from the former immigration minister, the honourable member for McMahon. In July 2011, the honourable member for McMahon, as the former immigration minister, said: And anyone who tries to tell you the 457 visa program is not working, needs to take another look at the facts. That is what the former immigration minister said. And here this government is telling us it is not working and that we need to change the legislation. The former immigration minister went further and in November 2011 he said: … the temporary skilled migration program, the 457 visa, continues to play a vital role in supporting business and meeting immediate skills gaps. These skilled workers are employed across a great variety of industries and work in many different occupations. The program has become international best practice … International best practice!And yet this government wants to completely change the legislation. Further, in March last year, the former immigration minister said: … statistics clearly show that the 457 visa program is working extremely well … He went on in May, last year: Skilled migrants are increasingly moving to growth regions and places where there is demand—they are complementing rather than competing with our domestic labour force Complementing rather than competing with—the minister was right. He went on in September last year: The 457 visa allows businesses to employ overseas workers in designated skills occupations only. The program cannot be used by business as a substitute for training and employing Australian workers. Again, the minister is right. In January this year, the former immigration minister said: The 457 visa program is designed to address genuine labour shortages that cannot be met from the Australian labour market and we believe we have this balance right. I believe that the honourable member for McMahon had it right. I hope that he carefully considers his vote, when it comes, on this bill. If the honourable member for McMahon votes with this bill, he will be saying that everything he said as a minister was hopelessly wrong. I hope he considers his vote, stands up and does the right thing and sticks by his words. Another reason to speak against this bill is because of what the industry groups have said. An unprecedented letter, a joint letter signed by the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia and the Migration Council Australia has warned against this legislation, and I quote directly from their letter: We are greatly concerned by the lack of supporting evidence, damaging rhetoric and poor process associated with the proposed changes to the 457 visa scheme, along with the considerable risks posed for investment, job creation and economic growth. …   …   … The legislation risks undermining the capacity to fill identified skills gaps in a timely way without a proper assessment of whether there is a genuine problem to be solved. The letter goes on: The new regulations will reduce flexibility and waste time and resources for no discernible benefit. Further, this legislation: … will only serve to work against business investment and economic growth. In this time, of all economic times, how can we bring legislation to this parliament that we are being warned by the leading industry groups will work against business investment and against economic growth? The letter concludes: The unsubstantiated assertions and unhelpful and damaging rhetoric associated with the 457 scheme and this Bill are unwarranted and have been harmful to Australia's international reputation and business confidence. At a time when Australia ought to be pulling out all stops to ensure the economy is firing strongly on all fronts—which means being able to fill critical skills needs in a timely and efficient way—we should not be rushed into major labour market changes which risk discouraging investment, job creation and economic growth. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you: given the comments in that letter by the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia and the Migration Council Australia, this legislation should not and cannot pass this parliament. Another argument against this bill is the refusal of the government to produce a regulatory impact statement. The reason we have that provision for legislation that is brought to this parliament is to ensure that our legislation is given due and proper consideration before it passes. Given the long, long list of this government's failures, with policy mistake after policy mistake, you would think the very last thing this government would do is abandon a regulatory impact statement, but that is exactly what this bill does. So why is the government bringing this bill in? Why are we going down this track when industry tells us there is so much risk to the economy? We know why. It is simply a distraction and an diversion—one of those tricks: 'Look over there!'—hoping that the public take their eyes off the problems we have on our border. We are currently averaging 100 people a day arriving on boats. Just this year alone, we have seen 12,700 people arrive on unauthorised boats. That is three times the number for the same period last year. This problem is getting worse—and dramatically worse. In total, over 44,600 people have arrived on boats under Labor's failed policy. That is more than we can fit into the Sydney Cricket Ground. So we come up with this diversion to take the public's attention off the enormous problems and this government's failure; we come up with this legislation and the rhetoric, trying to demonise foreign workers, claiming that they are stealing Aussie jobs. The government wants to demonise foreign workers and skilled migrants—these industrious new members of our society, people who pay their taxes, create wealth, help our businesses to win export contracts, which greatly contribute to our economy, and pay for their own health care. The government wants to attack those people and in the meantime is releasing tens of thousands of people into our community—people who have paid people smugglers to get to this country, having arrived without any documentation, are being released into our community. They are not allowed to work and not allowed to contribute to our society but are forced to sit around all day, drawing on social welfare and straining local health resources. Is there any clearer indication how wrong and muddleheaded, and how detrimental to our national interest, the policies of this government are? Then there is the complete hypocrisy of this bill. We know that the Prime Minister's communications director is employed on a 457 visa. I have heard members on my side ask the questions: did the Prime Minister advertise widely for this job and for how long? What market testing did the Prime Minister do? I would like to defend the Prime Minister, because I believe there is simply no other Australian that could possibly fulfil this role in her office. Who could have thought up the genius of orchestrating the Australia Day riots? What mastermind would it take to have dreamt up the PM's Contiki tour of Western Sydney, staying at good old Rooty Hill? And what brilliance did it take to envisage the PM's attack last week on men wearing blue ties? Clearly, no Australian could come up with such genius policies in communications, so the PM's office rightly needed to employ someone on a 457 visa. Or perhaps, given that everything this government does turns to mud, there is no-one else, no other Australian in our nation, prepared to do the job. What really concerns me in this debate are the arguments put forward by those on the other side, arguments simply based on a delusional socialist ideology that there are a limited number of jobs in the economy, all of which are somehow centrally planned and coordinated by all-knowing bureaucrats based here in Canberra. That delusion led them to believe that somehow when a skilled worker migrates to Australia and contributes to our economy, they are displacing an Australian worker. What the government does not understand is that jobs are created in our economy by entrepreneurs and risk-takers and that they are created by small, medium and large business in the private sector. When the business employs a skilled worker from overseas, they are not taking jobs—the opposite—they are creating wealth and thereby creating more employment and more wealth and more funds flowing from the taxpayers into government's central revenue in Australia. It is a good plan for Australia. So this proposed legislation which is being rushed through without the proper consultation will simply tie these businesses up with more red tape. It gives them a disincentive to go out and take that risk. In doing so, you are not protecting Australian jobs; you are doing the exact opposite. This legislation will destroy Australian jobs. It will make fewer employment opportunities. Not only is this legislation based on faulty ideology, not only is it dangerous to our nation's economic prosperity, its true danger is its danger to our nation's social cohesiveness. To falsely, misleadingly and mistakenly frame this debate as one of Aussie workers versus foreign skilled workers is a very dangerous track for this nation to head down. In the short time I have left, the other reason this legislation must be opposed is the so-called 'market testing'. It is no wonder. We have a government on the other side that is completely dominated by trade union officials. How many members of this government have actually gone out there in a competitive market, taken on a contract to supply goods and services within a tight time frame, and faced the risk of liquidated damages if there was any delay? How many members of this government actually understand what it is like to be in business and to risk their own capital? I would say none. Maybe in some centrally-controlled Canberra bureaucracy where you can sit around for six months and undertake a six-month market testing regime, you can do it, but the private sector does not have this luxury. If we bring this legislation in, it ties business up in red tape. It will cost jobs. In conclusion, the coalition will not and cannot support this bill. We are seeking its referral to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The coalition members remain consistent on our policies on 457 visas, and will be strong on policing our immigration laws, our borders, the community and the workplace. We oppose this appalling legislation. 12:40 Mr BRIGGS IYU Mayo I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 following the terrific contribution from the member for Hughes, who summarised the coalition's position very clearly. I will seek to add, the best way I can, to his contribution and to those of the other coalition members who have spoken in this debate. This is a horrific piece of legislation. It is being driven through in the second-last week of the parliament, which is scheduled to end this time next week. Of course there are all sorts of shenanigans going on around the offices at the moment. Who knows how it will play out this time next week? This is an attempt to divert the Australian people from the real challenges that we have in our economy, the real cost of doing business. They are challenges that are really starting to drive some major negatives in our economy. In South Australia we are seeing investment that should be going ahead being withdrawn. The most obvious example is the Olympic Dam project, which did not go ahead last year, and which, sadly, has been put on the backburner by BHP because the cost of doing business in Australia is now too high. Daily we see events in the manufacturing industry and in the car industry affecting South Australia's Holden plant. We saw the managing director of Holden Australia out there yesterday explaining that the costs of doing business in Australia are too high. Yet you see this government at the end of this term of parliament—it may be re-elected in 86 days if it gets that far; the Australian people have a choice in that time—seeking to push through legislation which will have a terribly detrimental effect on our economy. If you go back to the genesis of this, it was some time ago when we were under the stewardship in the immigration portfolio of the member for McMahon. The member for McMahon approved a migration agreement under the Immigration Act relating to a proposed mining development in Western Australia, which was a company owned by Gina Rinehart, who some, not all, of those on the other side seek to demonise most days in this place—only some seek to demonise people who create wealth and opportunity in our country. Ms Rinehart's company sought a migration agreement to develop a very significant project in Western Australia, which—I could be wrong here—I understand has in recent days been wound back in scale because of the cost of doing business in Australia. We will lose those opportunities there because of that. At the time when the migration agreement was sought—I am not in the government but I understand the negotiations for this migration agreement went on for some time with the then minister for resources, the member for Batman; the minister for immigration, the now member for McMahon; and the companies involved. When this was announced—I think it was a Friday at the end of a sitting week—it just happened to be a day that the ACTU was in town meeting with the Prime Minister. There was faux outrage everywhere. Faux outrage was on the menu in the Prime Minister's office that day. There was a series of meetings and much hand-wringing. How could the ministers sign up to such a terrible agreement to develop this resource body and create all this opportunity and wealth for our country? It was a terrible thing for them to bring all these workers in who were not available in Australia after all the testing had been done, after all the negotiations with the minister. It was not even to bring foreign workers in but to give them the ability to bring foreign workers in if they needed to. I could be wrong, and I am happy to be corrected by members of the other side, but I think that is when this issue started to become the political issue that has now landed some 86 days prior to an election. The member for McMahon, when he was the minister, was extremely positive about the impact of the skilled migration program; he was, it is fair to say, a proponent of it. It is very interesting that these changes have been ushered in since the member for McMahon left the immigration portfolio, and not long after that he was not sacked but I think it is fair to say that if he had not handed in his resignation he would have had his commission withdrawn, given the events around the leadership issue in March. The member for McMahon's record in the immigration portfolio I would not argue has been a strong one. I did not agree with the member for McMahon breaking the promise not to have onshore detention facilities, including one in my electorate, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was, and still am, quite disappointed that the member for McMahon broke that election commitment and that a facility was established at Inverbrackie after the last election. But I think the member for McMahon is bigger than the campaign that is now being waged on these workers. And it is interesting that a former immigration minister who had carriage of this issue for a large part of this Labor government, certainly for the Gillard government, is silent when this bill is presented. Again you have to ask: why would that be? When the member for McMahon was the immigration minister at a time when the vast bulk, presumably, of the 10,000 'problems' with this system have developed, why would he not feel compelled to make a contribution in this debate? He may have made a contribution elsewhere but I have not seen it. I suspect it is because he thinks it is exactly what the member for Canning said in his contribution yesterday: it is about trying to divide Australians. It is trying to target a group for political purposes. Since many of those on the other side have for many years claimed that such activities happened under the coalition, this sits high on the hypocrisy scale. From a South Australian perspective, the 457 program is very important, including for businesses in my electorate. For instance, there are meatworks in my electorate at Lobethal who use 457 workers and they are an extremely important part of that business. For that industry, which has struggled to attract skilled people within the country to operate abattoirs, it is a very important program indeed. I know those employers are very concerned about this attack on the 457 program. I have seen them in recent days and they are extremely concerned about what the government is doing. But it is not just private sector employers who are big users of this program. It might shock you to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, who is the biggest user of 457 visas in South Australia. According to a story on the front page of The Australian on 5 April this year by Sarah Martin, a diligent reporter in Adelaide, the biggest user of 457s in South Australia is the South Australian Labor government. It is a bit odd, you would have thought, given this program is such a bad program and has been rorted so excessively, that a state government is the biggest user in South Australia and, for that matter, in Tasmania too. Interestingly, Tasmania also has a Labor government—in fact, a Labor-Green government. So the 457 program has obviously been rorted so badly the South Australian government thinks it is a good idea to get in on the act. Obviously that is what it is; maybe they are part of the rorting. The hypocrisy has been pointed out by numerous members in this debate and in question time in recent days. It is not enough for the Prime Minister herself to have a 457 visa worker as her so-called political adviser, if that is what you could call him; it is also state Labor governments who think using this program is a good idea. It is a good idea in certain circumstances, because the protections around the system which have been in place for some time now—for many years, in fact—do work. They mean that if a worker cannot be found for a certain job after a company has gone through the required amount of diligence to find an available Australian worker then they can seek a relevant skilled person from elsewhere. If it is such an easy thing for companies to do, then why, after all the effort and the requirements and the costs associated with bringing people from overseas and having to pay them the same wages, the market rates, would it be in the employers' interests to rort the system? There is no justifiable or simple explanation for why all of a sudden, in the last few months leading up to an election, this has become a major challenge in the Australian employment market—except for one thing. There is one group in the Australian economy who has consistently disliked the use of 457 visa workers. When I had some involvement with this in the former government, as an employed staff member in a Prime Minister's office, I found there was one group who was always opposed to the use of 457 workers. It has been mentioned in this place and it is the trade union movement. The trade union movement has been opposed to the use of 457 visas for a very long time. The CFMEU, the most militant of the unions, has been leading the campaign to demonise these workers for a very long time. They have been opposed to 457s for a very long time because the unions do not argue for economic growth anymore. There was a time in the past, when people like the member for Batman and the member for Hotham were involved in the trade union movement, when they did. But they do not argue for economic growth anymore; they argue for their internal interests. They argue for their members' interests, not for the broader economic interests of our country. They are for the insiders. They are not for growing our economy. They are for protecting what is there. That is their modus operandi. That is what this is all about. Paul Howes, the not-so-faceless man, has just been on national television reassuring the world that he still has support for the Prime Minister. He has just put his head up—as if the Prime Minister's day could not get any worse; Paul Howes has found a way—and been on television telling the world that he still supports the Prime Minister. This is what it is all about. The minister for immigration was put in the portfolio because he has a very close relationship with the CFMEU, who the Prime Minister is extraordinarily reliant on for the continuation of her prime ministership. That is exactly what this bill is about. This bill is not about economic reform. It is not about reducing the costs of doing business in our country. This bill is about the politics of the Labor leadership. This bill is about ensuring that the Prime Minister continues to have the support of the big union bosses who can influence those who have a vote in the Labor caucus. It will be very interesting to see whether that influence lasts for seven days because it might be one thing to have your preselection threatened when you are going to win your seat but it is another thing to have your preselection threatened when you might not have a seat at all. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Can I ask the member for Mayo to come back to debating the bill. Mr BRIGGS IYU That is exactly what I am doing. I am debating: what is the intention of this bill? What is the reason for this bill and all? With all the 40-odd pieces of legislation still to pass this House of Representatives, why is this the No. 1 priority? It is not because of good economic reform. It is not because there is some startling problem in the employment market relating to 457 visa workers. The only problem in the employment market is the security that the Prime Minister has for her own job. She needs every protection that is in Bill Shorten's fair dismissal code in the next seven days, because this is a crude attempt to hold onto the prime ministership of Australia, which will do damage to our country, damage to our economy, is unnecessary and should be withdrawn before it passes the parliament. We do not support this. It is a bad piece of legislation. 12:55 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. This is a protectionist bill. This bill is about protectionism in the labour markets at the behest of the unions, pursuing an agenda which they have been following for many years. It is also about another form of protectionism: trying to protect a vulnerable Prime Minister attempting to shore up the support of the union movement and the caucus members in this parliament, whose votes are determined in accordance with directions from the union movement. In an attempt to secure the support of the union movement, the Prime Minister and her government are introducing a poor piece of policy which is fundamentally protectionist in the way that it operates. This is a bill which has been introduced in response to pressure from the union movement. It is not a bill which seeks to address a question of economic policy which is in the interest of Australia as a whole. It is a bill which contains a series of flawed and ill-judged measures. In particular, it will require employers who wish to sponsor 457 visa holders—that is, those who wish to bring into Australia workers with skills which they are unable to find in the Australian market—to go through what is called labour-market testing, which in reality is a series of onerous, detailed, expensive and time-consuming barriers to the use of this visa class. Another objectionable measure in this bill is to create yet another class of inspectors who are able to knock on the door of employers all around the country and come in and check what is going on. In the time available to me today I want to make three points about this bill. Firstly, it is driven by one objective and one objective only, which is to respond to the demands and the sectional agenda of the union movement. Secondly, I want to argue that it is a piece of poor policy which in turn reflects very poor process, because this bill has been rushed through with little detailed investigation of the issues, little consultation with stakeholders apart from the union movement and little analysis justifying the purported benefits. Thirdly, as a consequence of these factors, this is a bill which is likely to do serious economic damage. Let us start with the proposition that the motivation for this bill being before the House today is to respond to the protectionist agenda of the union movement. Of course, if you are a union boss, you quite like the idea that you are able to block certain classes of people coming into the country. You quite like the idea that you are able to run simplistic arguments about restricting people coming in from overseas who, in the rhetoric, will 'take Aussie jobs'. Of course that appeals to the narrow and sectional interests of union leaders. The point that I seek to demonstrate is that it is that agenda which is being reflected in the bill that the government has put before the chamber today. I look, for example, at policy item No. 8 in the policy statement issued as part of the ACTU 2012 congress: Congress believes that rigorous labour market testing requirements must be implemented for all elements of the skilled migration program to ensure that overseas workers are not brought to Australia where there is labour available locally … I look to a statement by the national construction secretary of the CFMEU, one of Australia's largest, most militant and most influential unions: Mr Noonan said that everyone should be concerned that the proportion of 457 visas granted onshore to overseas workers already in Australia had grown from 43% to 51% in the last 12 months … I quote from the submission by the Australian Workers' Union in December 2011 to the Migration Program consultations being conducted for 2012-13. The Australian Workers' Union had this to say in their submission: It is clear that the increased projected use of 457 may lead to a lack of opportunity for local applicants to participate in the labour market. The AWU has long supported measures that adequately test whether there is a true need for particular skills to be imported at a point in time. There is ample evidence that imposing greater restrictions on 457 visas and imposing a labour market-testing requirement is something that the union movement has been seeking to achieve for a long time, and I have cited several statements from union leaders and union organisations supporting that proposition. That is the reason why this parliament is considering the bill today. The parliament is considering this bill today because this particular restriction on the tightening of section 457 visas has long been at the top of the agenda of the union movement. It has nothing to do with good economic policy, it has nothing to do with whether it serves the interests of the Australian nation and the Australian workforce as a whole and it has everything to do with whether it is part of the agenda of the union movement and whether, in turn, a Prime Minister who is desperately in need of protection has chosen to leap on this particular issue to give effect to the protectionist agenda of the union movement. Secondly, I want to turn to the proposition that in substance the measures before the House contained in this bill represent poor policy and, in turn, that that reflects a very poor process, with inadequate consultation and inadequate investigation of the substantive issues. I note first of all that this bill has been granted an exemption from the normal requirement to have a regulatory impact statement. Yet again we see this government running through normal process requirements and disregarding them, and it generally does that when it has something to hide. We can, I think, infer quite confidently from the fact that the Prime Minister has chosen to waive the requirement for a regulatory impact statement the expectation that if such a statement were to be prepared what it would have to say would not be terribly favourable to the cause. This parliament, this House, ought properly to be suspicious of any piece of legislation which is put forward and which is not supported by a regulatory impact statement. The suspicion that if such a statement existed it would not aid the cause is reinforced when you look at the clear gap in evidence underlying the stated reason for the bill which is before the House this afternoon. This, of course, is an area where we have seen the inglorious episode of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship publicly claiming that there have been up to 10,000 cases of abuse in the section 457 visa program and yet he subsequently had to admit that he had made those numbers up. He could produce no evidence—no substantiation—for that particular claim. Indeed, the government's own advisers say that there is no evidence of this claim that there is in some way widespread rorting of the section 457 visa skilled migration program. Demographer, Professor Peter McDonald, who is a member of the government's Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration, has described the Prime Minister's rhetoric on this particular issue as 'nasty'. When you think about the problem, which we are told by the union movement and by Labor politicians is widespread, and when you compare it to the remedy contained in this bill, you see that there is an obvious disconnect. We are told that the problem is that there is a large number of people who are employed under substandard working conditions because they have been brought in through the 457 visa program. And yet the key measure in the bill is to do with tests that have to occur in advance of bringing people in, and those tests relate to the availability of Australian employees—Australian workers—with the relevant skills. The measure that the bill is introducing will add more red tape, more process and more steps to demonstrate that when an employer wishes to bring somebody in under a section 457 visa there are no Australian workers adequately skilled to do the job. That is the key measure in this bill, and it takes only a moment's reflection to see that that has very little to do with the claimed problem which this bill supposedly addresses—the claimed problem about which we have heard so much from the minister and about which we have heard so much from union officials—that there is allegedly widespread rorting and a large number of people brought in under section 457 visas who then work under substandard conditions, and there are various other allegations made in relation to those. When you have a bill with core measures which do not address the problem which the bill supposedly seeks to address, it makes you very suspicious. It ought to put this House on inquiry and.it ought to put this House on notice that there is something dodgy going on. And, of course, there is something dodgy going on, because what we have is this Rudd-Gillard Labor government—this government of the unions, by the unions and for the unions—responding to the agenda of the union movement. That has been their only consideration, and they have disregarded the likely economic damage which is going to be done as a consequence of these measures. Let me turn to that point: the likely economic policy consequences of these measures. We should remember how important skilled migration has been to this country's economic growth and prosperity. We should remember that at every stage of our nation's growth we have had a substantial immigration program and that our prosperity, particularly since World War II, has drawn very heavily on bringing in people with skills, talents and capabilities from all around the world. That is a process that continues today, and Australia is very much better as a nation for it. Every one of us in this place has had the privilege of attending citizenship ceremonies and seeing the great diversity of countries from around the world from which our new citizens come, and every one of us also has had the opportunity to observe how many of those citizens have started their journey to citizenship in other visa categories, including the 457 skilled migration visa category. Certainly it is true that more than half of all permanent skilled visas sponsored by employers are granted to 457 skilled migration visa holders already in Australia. I quoted earlier a union official who said that this was in some way evidence of a problem. On our side of the House, we think it is evidence of a program working well. We also observe that the core measure in this bill of labour market testing has already been tried and it was found to do more harm than good. It applied when section 457 visas were first introduced in 1996. It proved to be too cumbersome to implement and too difficult to monitor. It was dropped by the Howard government in 2001. Yet, regardless of that precedent and regardless of that historical experience, this government is now proposing in the bill before the House to introduce onerous new labour market testing requirements which will require employers to produce substantial additional documentation. The economic logic here is very difficult to understand when one considers that employers already have a very strong economic incentive to hire Australians rather than to go overseas. It is always going to be cheaper, easier and more efficient to do that. So the stated rationale for adding these additional requirements is comprehensively ill judged. This is a bad bill introducing bad measures in response to the sectional agenda of the union movement. On this side of the House we reject it. We say it should not be supported. Debate adjourned. Tax Laws Amendment (Fairer Taxation of Excess Concessional Contributions) Bill 2013 6492

Tax Laws Amendment (Fairer Taxation of Excess Concessional Contributions) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 6492 Third Reading 6492 13:11 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Charge) Bill 2013 6492

Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Charge) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 6492 Third Reading 6492 13:12 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013 6492

Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 6492 Third Reading 6498 13:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013 6498

Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013

Report from Federation Chamber 6498 Third Reading 6498 13:13 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 6499 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 6499 13:14 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following items of private Members' business being called on and considered immediately in the following order: Proposed East West Link in Melbourne—Order of the day; Chemotherapy drugs—Order of the day; Sugar industry—Order of the day; Department of the Treasury and Department of Finance and Deregulation—Order of the day No. 26; University funding—Order of the day; and Fair Work Amendment (Tackling Job Insecurity) Bill 2012—Order of the day No. 18. Question agreed to. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 6499 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Melbourne: East West Link 6499 Chemotherapy Drugs 6500 13:15 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I seek leave to make an amendment to this private members' motion. Leave granted. Mr NEUMANN HVO I move: That the motion be amended to read— "That this House: (1) notes the concerns of key stakeholders in relation to the price reduction of chemotherapy drug Docetaxel and its potential broader impact on the treatment of cancer patients; (2) notes that the Government: (a) has announced a review into arrangements for funding chemotherapy services; (b) is providing $29.7 million in the 2013-14 Budget to pay providers an additional $60 for each chemotherapy infusion on an interim basis for six months, to cover the review period between 1 July 2013 and 31 December 2013, in addition to current fees of $76.37; and (c) demonstrated it was committed to providing drugs for cancer patients, having added 30 new drugs to treat 15 different cancers at an additional cost of $1.3 billion to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme since 2007; and (3) welcomes the policy of Accelerated and Expanded Price Disclosure of items on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme" Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Deputy Speaker, I bring your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83N The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 83S The division has been called off with the agreement of the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. The Leader of the House has the call. 13:23 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Can I indicate to the House that it is my strong view and consistent view that where amendments are moved to Private Members' Business it is appropriate that members have an opportunity to consider those amendments. Hence, I will be moving that this debate be adjourned for further consideration under Private Members' Business in the parliament. I think this is— Honourable members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 in the new paradigm? Honourable members interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 I am trying to help. The SPEAKER 83S Order! This is a serious matter and I am not going to have it interfered with. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 Thank you, Speaker. This is a serious matter. Private Members' Business under previous parliaments would not have been voted on. There were debates but then they were not determined. Because we are now dealing with outcomes and votes, it is appropriate that members, including the mover of the original motion, who I understand is the member for Dickson, have an opportunity to see amendments that are for him. I point out to the Manager of Opposition Business that I expect this to be a principle that is applied across the board because I do think this is an important principle. 13:25 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt On indulgence—Madam Speaker, the members of the coalition are aware of the situation. We are obviously deciding Private Members' Business as we do on most Thursdays. The member for Dickson had a matter of Private Members' Business that was being voted on today. The parliamentary secretary, without notice or discussion with the private member, moved an amendment to that. Usually, if such an amendment is being moved, there is an amicable discussion across the chamber and a matter is worked out. I support and thank the Leader of the House—who would have won this division if it had been held, obviously—for ensuring that the amendment that the parliamentary secretary is now moving to the member for Dickson's motion will be properly debated, and should it be debated next week, then we will be able to return next Thursday and vote on it then. We will probably get the same result, but at least a proper debate will have been held. Debate adjourned. Sugar Industry 6501 Department of the Treasury and Department of Finance and Deregulation 6502 University Funding 6502

The House divided. [13:31]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)

 5 AYES Bandt, AP (teller) Katter, RC Oakeshott, RJM (teller) Thomson, CR Wilkie, AD 35 NOES Albanese, AN Billson, BF Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Briggs, JE Ciobo, SM Coulton, M (teller) Danby, M Dutton, PC Fletcher, PW Hartsuyker, L Hockey, JB Husic, EN Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Keenan, M McCormack, MF Mitchell, RG (teller) Neumann, SK Neville, PC Perrett, GD (teller) Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ruddock, PM Secker, PD (teller) Shorten, WR Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, KJ Van Manen, AJ Wyatt, KG 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Fair Work Amendment (Tackling Job Insecurity) Bill 2012 6502

Fair Work Amendment (Tackling Job Insecurity) Bill 2012

Second Reading 6502 Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 6502

Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6502 13:37 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. As members on this side of the House know—and I see the shadow minister for small business, the member for Dunkley, here—the coalition supports business in Australia and we support flexibility. We support employment and jobs. The member for Dunkley is a great champion for small business in Australia. I would like to set the scene before I go on to the bill and talk about a small business in my electorate of Swan, which had an issue with visas. Part of his issues were dealing with trying to get the type of people he needed for his business onto the SOL so he could bring those people in on 457 visas instead of on the temporary holiday visas that he was bringing them in on. I will just read the email he sent to me to set the scene to explain to members on the other side of the House how important having a correct visa system is for businesses in Australia. The email is from Michael D'Arcy, who runs The Bicycle Entrepreneur business in Belmont. He writes: Steve, I run a small business in Belmont called The Bicycle Entrepreneur. We employ about 50 employees, both full-time and casual. We've been selling bicycles for nearly 30 years, and now have 4 stores around the metropolitan, as well as a separate service centre here in Belmont. This is where my problem is. I am unable to source experienced Bicycle Mechanics either here in WA, or from the eastern states. This has forced my hand to employ from overseas, which we have done now for the last couple of years. The biggest hurdle for getting people here is that they are only eligible to work under the working holiday visa, which has a 6 month working limitation, limiting us to not being able to plan our future staffing effectively. I really just want to know how I go about getting the Occupation of Bicycle Mechanic to The Skilled Occupation List (SOL) 2011- Schedule 1 and 2. This would enable us to bring staff over on a relevant visa. The 457. For your reference, we have a thorough training structure in place to try and keep the young people we employ, that have aspirations to be bicycle mechanics, but in reality, we retain less than one in twenty, due to the attractions of high wages for low skill levels on offer working in the resource sector. This problem is limiting the growth of our business, enabling us to increase our workforce. We are aware that the WA government is currently lobbying for 16,500 regional sponsored visas, which for a person to be eligible, they must be employed into an occupation listed on the Skilled Occupation List (SOL) 2011- Schedule 1 and 2. Which the occupation of bicycle mechanic is not. Adding the Occupation of Bicycle Mechanic for this list would significantly increase the growth potential of our business due to the high level of servicing related to the selling of Bicycles. Should you be able to either do something about this directly, or put me onto someone who is able to help us here it would be greatly appreciated. That was from Michael D'Arcy from The Bicycle Entrepreneur in Belmont in my electorate. I did visit his business with the Deregulation Taskforce headed by Senator Sinodinos. The member for Higgins also came along. We listened to what he had to say. I might encourage those members on the other side of the House to go and visit small businesses in their electorate and find out how important these 457 visas are. This legislation has a similar vibe to the policy changes that the government introduced to weaken Australian border protection measures back in 2007 and 2008, right back at the beginning of the Rudd-Gillard government. Back then Labor took a system that was working effectively for Australia, in terms of having stopped the boats, and changed it. We all know what happened after Labor weakened border security: over 40,000 arrivals and, tragically, over 1,000 deaths at sea—possibly one of the greatest policy failures in Australian history. It is now deja vu. Labor wants to change a policy that is working well for the country. This time it is the 457 visa policy, refined over years of the Howard government—a policy that has stood the test of time and has been backed by the Australian people and Australian employers. The irony is that the government is doing this in an attempt to distract from the damage caused by the very first policy failure on border protection. Mr Lyons interjecting— Mr IRONS HYM The member for Bass might do well to support this, because I know the employment levels in his state of Tasmania are pitiful. The lessons have not been learned from the past and this twin policy failure will have a perverse policy result if this legislation is passed. It would give the impression that this parliament facilitates the illegal arrival of boats while providing no work rights for the people on board, meaning many end up on welfare, while at the same time making life more difficult for the temporary skilled migrants. The people smugglers will be emboldened and business will not be able to find the staff to fill the temporary job shortages that are required to be filled in Western Australia and across the country. That is the impact of this legislation and that is why I am asking the government to reconsider the legislation today. I know there are members of the government that do not support this class warfare on the foreign workers that this bill represents. Many have been on public record, and I hope those members will help to stop this legislation from passing through the House. The member for Lyne has stated in the paper that he will not be supporting the legislation until he sees some evidence of a need to change. I think that should be the position of this parliament. In terms of the wider community this rhetoric started by the Prime Minister in March to run down skilled migration for political gain as a desperate distraction from the disastrous border protection policies has not worked. It has not resonated with the Australian public and it certainly has not worked in my own electorate of Swan in Western Australia. The reason for that is that the Australian people do not want to be divided; they want to be united. In my electorate, where 47.9 per cent of my constituents were born overseas, this move has certainly backfired against the government. Swan has many different groups of skilled migrants but no one dominant group. The hard-working people were not impressed by the government's war on foreign workers. It should be noted that the former member for Swan, now the member for Canning, described in parliament last month this bill being the most racist piece of legislation he had encountered during his time in parliament, stating that the bill harked back to the mentality not seen since the gold rush of the 1850s, when the Chinese immigrants were discriminated against. These are strong words from someone who has been in the parliament for a long time. It is often said that one of the Howard government's best achievements was the consensus it built in Australia for controlled immigration of skilled workers, and this consensus was built by policies such as the 457 visa policy, which was introduced in 1996. It was a policy that was road-tested and refined over the course of the Howard government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Swan will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 6505 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Ryan Electorate: University of Queensland Pipe Band 6505 13:45 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I am very proud to announce that the University of Queensland Pipe Band at Emmanuel College has retained its grade 4 champions title following the 2013 Queensland Pipe Band Championships recently held in Ipswich. The band took out first place from a field of 13 bands representing Queensland and New South Wales to be named Queensland grade 4 champions for the second year in a row. The band will now go on to compete at the World Pipe Band Championships in Glasgow, Scotland, in August. Pipe Major Andrew McCabe said Learning a specialised instrument like the bagpipes takes many years of practice and for any piper or drummer in Queensland to have the opportunity to compete at the World Championships is, for many, a once in a lifetime experience. The band won the Queensland pipe association trophy, the Donald Mackie Trophy for best pipe corps and the Best Medley Performance award in grade 4. The University of Queensland Pipe Band is under the patronage of Emmanuel College principal Professor Stewart Gill, and he says the band is excited about representing the university, the college and, indeed, the Queensland community at the world championships. I wish them the best of luck. Richmond Electorate: Byron Bay Bluesfest 6505 13:46 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise to speak about Bluesfest in Byron Bay, which is one of Australia's most acclaimed and respected festivals, and also to talk about the great economic benefits that Bluesfest brings our area. Bluesfest began as the East Coast Blues Festival in 1990 at the Arts Factory in Byron Bay. It quickly became known as Byron Bay Bluesfest and it is now known as Bluesfest. It has a permanent home at Tyagarah Tea Tree Farm, located 11 kilometres north of Byron Bay and eight kilometres south of Brunswick. The event is absolutely massive. It includes facilities such as seven performance stages, five licensed bars and huge undercover food halls. This year we saw more than 40,000 people attending Bluesfest. It is mainly a credit to the festival director, Peter Noble, who does an outstanding job. If we look at the economic benefit of this year's Bluesfest, there is a total output of $64.1 million in the Byron Shire; estimated total income—that is wages and salaries—of $10.8 million in Byron Shire; approximately 379 full-time equivalent employment positions in Byron Shire; and also a record-breaking $120,000-plus in charity money raised, which is a fantastic amount. So we can see Bluesfest brings massive economic benefits to Byron Bay and also, indeed, the Northern Rivers. It is an outstanding cultural event, of course—one of the most acclaimed in the country and internationally as well. We are very proud of it. It is usually held over the Easter long weekend. I just put a bit of a plug in for Bluesfest 2014. It is the 25th anniversary of Bluesfest and it will be held from 17 to 21 April 2014. I understand it is nearly sold out. It is a great celebration and a wonderful local event in my electorate. Marsden, Mr James, OAM 6506 13:47 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur I would like to acknowledge a very special member of the Macarthur community who was acknowledged in this year's Queen's Birthday Honours. Jim Marsden, a proud local, received the Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the Campbelltown community. Not only does Jim have a long list of successful business achievements in his role at Marsdens Law Group, but the list of his contributions to and involvement in the Macarthur community is just as long. His contributions to the arts, sporting organisations and local bodies in Macarthur have been of great service in supporting essential social, economic, physical and creative aspects of community life. Jim has touched many through his involvement at the Campbelltown Arts Centre, St Gregory's College Campbelltown, the amateur swimming club, Campbelltown RSL Sub-Branch, the Koshigaya sister city committee, the South-West Sydney sports foundation, the Wests Magpies and later Wests Tigers, Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre, Apex, the chamber of commerce and the Macarthur Economic Development Advisory Board. Jim has also demonstrated that he is always willing to extend a helping hand to a range of local organisations that exist to benefit and assist others in Macarthur. He has contributed time and expertise to Mater Dei, the Ingham Institute, Lifeline Macarthur, Odyssey House, the McGrath Foundation, Kids of Macarthur, Campbelltown Life Education, the Salvation Army Advisory Board and Main Street. Just a few years ago Jim shaved his head for charity. Jim's longstanding devotion to the Macarthur community sets a great example of the wonderful things that can be achieved when locals give back to the community. I feel very proud to have such a fine citizen in my electorate, and I admire the great advocacy work he does to make Macarthur such a great place to live. Jim, you are always putting your community before yourself. Thanks, Jim. You are a legend. Keep up the good work. You are an absolute champion. Motor Neurone Disease 6506 13:49 Mr MURPHY 83D Reid I wish to congratulate the member for Mitchell on his promotion and support of Motor Neurone Disease Global Awareness Day, or Cornflower Day. In a recent letter to his parliamentary colleagues, the member for Mitchell records that motor neurone disease is a rapidly progressing, terminal neurological disease that leaves an active mind trapped in a motionless body and that this reality is faced by 1,400 Australians each year. I wear this flower today very proudly to highlight the terrible impact this insidious disease has on sufferers and their families. Very recently, motor neurone disease touched a member of my staff, forcing an early retirement. Totally unexpected, this illness hit hard with no warning, rendering my staff member unable to continue in his role. The progression has been rapid and, alas, there is no cure. There remains, therefore, a critical need for ongoing research to find causes and a suitable treatment and cure. It is an illness which affects the entire family, who, together with their afflicted loved one, must come to terms with the illness and its ultimate progression. In addition, families must deal with the matter of the ongoing care of their loved one. By wearing this flower today, we help highlight this devastating neurological disease and bring this disease and its impact on families to the attention of all Australians. I again congratulate the member for Mitchell for his initiative and I also congratulate Motor Neurone Disease Australia on their very hard work combating this illness. I urge the Australian government to expand its support of medical research on motor neurone disease. Brisbane Electorate: Community Events 6507 13:50 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane Community spirit is alive and well in the electorate of Brisbane, and nowhere was this more apparent that in a jam-packed weekend of events last weekend. On Saturday the Zonta Inaugural Fashion Showcase fundraiser was held in Brisbane City Hall, where four clubs came together. I want to acknowledge a local resident, Flora Di Lizio, and her committee for their prized organisation. Flora is probably one of the best raffle ticket sellers I have ever seen. The purpose of this event was to support Project NOW, which helps make a difference to the lives of women in Queensland suffering from drug, alcohol and gambling addiction. The Zonta Club membership is made up of women from a diverse range of ages, experiences, professions and backgrounds, and they do absolutely fantastic work in advancing the status of women through local fundraising, service and fellowship. Saturday was also the day of the Racecourse Road Winter Lights Festival in Hamilton. I want to thank Councillor David McLachlan for the Brisbane City Council funding and also the Brisbane Airport Corporation's Julieanne Alroe for their sponsorship. This year's Winter Lights Festival had a new and exciting look about it, a new feel. There were a number of performances along with the road. They had an interactive atmosphere for both businesses and audiences and the festival continues to provide a showcase for local musicians and performers to connect to their community. All enjoyed the wonderful parade of the lights for the first time ever. It was wonderful to see so many families. Petition: FaHCSIA in Tuggeranong 6507 13:52 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I rise to present a petition. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives We, the undersigned residents, local business, and employees of the Tuggeranong region of the ACT, wish to bring to-the House's attention that a reversal of our population demise depends on Commonwealth Public Service jobs for Tuggeranong as the fundamental backbone of our local economy. Public Service jobs are the major contributor to the security and prosperity of our families and communities. These jobs will ensure our safety, our health, and our environment. Any loss of public service jobs reduces household income and consumer spending, hurting businesses and our economy. Therefore We call on the House to do all in its power to 1. Maintain and improve existing public service jobs that are located in the Tuggeranong region; and 2. To locate in Tuggeranong CBD the required 40,000 to 42,000 square meters of space that is needed to house the newly consolidated Commonwealth Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. from 905 citizens Petition received. Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra is built on a satellite city concept which has created national capital of micro-economies. If Canberra is to continue to prosper, it is important that each of these micro-economies is supported and remains strong. That is why I am pleased today to table in parliament a petition from the residents, local businesses, Tuggeranong community council, employees and community groups of Canberra to call for the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to remain in one of Canberra's great satellite cities, Tuggeranong. Public Service jobs based in Tuggeranong are the backbone of the local economy. Over 900 petitioners, including myself, are therefore calling on the House to do all in its power to maintain and improve existing Public Service jobs in the Tuggeranong region. Specifically we are calling for the 40,000 square metres of space that is needed to house the newly-consolidated FaHCSIA building to be located in the Tuggeranong CBD. FaHCSIA employs more than 1,000 people who currently support the many businesses and services of Tuggeranong. Moving these jobs out of Tuggeranong would have a huge impact on small businesses and services in the area. It would significantly weaken one of our vitally important satellite cities and micro-economies. Let us keep every part of Canberra strong, let us keep FaHCSIA in Tuggeranong. Learn Earn Legend Program 6508 13:53 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I had the opportunity to have a work experience student from the Learn Earn Legend program in my parliamentary office. Benita McGinty is a young student living in Forrestfield in my electorate. Benita comes from Fitzroy Crossing in the Kimberly region. She is a young Aboriginal woman who is of Walmajarri and Gija Descent. She spent her childhood with her grandmother learning her language and culture. She moved to Perth in 2008 for high school. She is now in year 12 and doing a traineeship with Monadelphous completing a certificate II in business. She is studying at Sevenoaks Senior College and is working hard to create strong future for herself. Benita tells me that she would like a career on a mine site with a trade or to be working to build a strong local community. Benita believes that her time in parliament this week has been an eye-opener and an experience that she will not forget. She was interested to learn how new laws were being developed and new bills were brought into the parliament. Benita said that she is very happy and proud of herself to be able to come all the way to Canberra and meet Aboriginal students from across Australia from the Learn Earn Legend program and meet and see members of the parliament. I wish Benita the very best for her future and I hope this week was indeed an experience she will not forget. Tasmanian Football Council 6508 13:54 Mr LYONS M38 Bass I rise in the House today to congratulate the Tasmanian Football Council under-23 team. Two weeks ago the Tassie team beat Western Australia for the first time since 1966. I am pleased there is one person from Western Australia siting opposite. Sorry, there are two. This was a great result for our players, allied staff, parents and relatives on the day. Chase Armstrong from Smithton played on a Western Australian who was at least 12 inches taller than him. I congratulate all those who participated but particularly those from the mighty electorate of Bass. They were Kerry Haywood and Phil Atkins from the NTFA committee, trainer Ernie Blackberry, team coach Wayne Kirby, midfield coach Max Pierce, back line coach Geoff Skeggs and our NTFA players Darren Long, Jake Pierce, Tom Bennett and Andrew Cox-Goodyer, Todd Rattray, Lewis Taylor, Jake Huett and Corey Nankervis. I could not have been more proud when I heard that the Tasmanian Football Council team had beaten the Western Australians. They are a great team and it is wonderful that this team got on so well. There were no dramas, no big heads and they all had fun. When you consider the thousands of players that the Western Australians had to pick from and Tassie only having a few hundred, it was a great effort from the mighty Tasmanian under-23 team. You did Tasmania proud. Wright Electorate: Eat Local Week 6509 13:56 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Next week the Scenic Rim in my electorate will be holding its annual Eat Local Week. The festival is an annual region-wide, week-long event with a focus on fresh food, wine and all things grown and produced within the Scenic Rim. The area is diverse with agricultural and tourism industries working alongside one another and they are both pivotal to the prosperity of the Scenic Rim. These industries are estimated to contribute around $210 million annually to the regional economy and account for around 30 per cent of the registered businesses within the electorate. Eat Local Week is now in its third year of celebrating the growers, producers and businesses who make up such an important and significant proportion of the Scenic Rim community. There are a wide variety of events being held right across the region that will engage, educate and delight the palate. Even if you are not a foodie, there is something for everyone in the program. The week-long program boasts cooking classes with top chefs, the Zest Fest which is a community festival being held in the picturesque township of Beechmont, farm tours from the carrot fields in Kalbar to the vineyards of Tamborine, activities for the kids and the Winter Harvest Festival with live music, tasting plates and potato sack races in Aratula. It is a highlight on the social calendar for many people not just in the Scenic Rim but for people from South-East Queensland on the whole, with many people making a special trip out to our beautiful part of the country just to take part in the event. I encourage everyone to make their way to the Scenic Rim. Learn Earn Legend Program 6509 13:57 Ms O'NEILL 140651 Robertson Like the member for Hasluck, I was very proud to host an Indigenous year 11 student as part of the Learn Earn Legend Work Exposure program this week. Connor Watson spent two days learning the ropes and seeing what life in this place is like. I asked that Connor write a few words about his time with me and my office. I am happy to read those into Hansard for him now: My name is Connor Watson; I'm a year 11 student from Knox Grammar School. Over the past few days I have had the opportunity to do work placement in the parliament house, this is through the very successful; learn, earn, legend program. I am very lucky to have the chance to come to Canberra and work with Deborah, Ann and Richie. These few days have really changed my ideas of politics. At the start of the week I really had no idea or much interest in how the country is run, but I have been fortunate enough to see the cool side of politics whether its question time, the meetings I hear about or even just the various tours I have been on. I did some office work and I learnt about the issues facing people in our electorate of Robertson. I hope that one day the country fixes the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people through getting in constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians. I have known Connor over many years. He was the absolute gun rugby player who joined my son's under-seven team at the Sharks at Avoca. We were not a very successful team overall but we knew we had a star when Connor arrived. He is a star. He has got himself a scholarship to Knox. He is a former student of St Edwards at East Gosford, a wonderful asset to this nation. Dunkley Electorate: Public Transport Safety 6510 13:59 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley There was a disturbing assault on a metropolitan train service in Melbourne where a very large gentleman—a somewhat larger unit than me—was assaulted by two young women in a very ugly event that has caused quite a lot of concern for those who are using public transport in Melbourne. I urge the government to consider the use of modern technology to be able to discretely alert authorities, security and the protective services officers who are available to these episodes so that people can travel in safety and join up that security response to actual episodes. Use an app. Use the technology. It is available and will make a real difference. Order of Australia 6510 14:00 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I would like to bring to the attention of the House the achievement of two of my constituents, both of whom received the Order of Australia: Trevor Lawrence for his service to veterans and Deadre Ham for her service to the community of Belmont. Deadre has been an outstanding citizen over a number of years. She is involved with the neighbourhood watch and the Belmont High School canteen even though she no longer has any children attending the school. She is a wonderful asset to our community, just as Trevor is a wonderful asset to the veterans community on the Central Coast. I would like to thank both of them for all their work and contributions to our community over a very long period of time. I have to put on the record of the House the fact that they are both real assets to the communities that they are part of. The SPEAKER 83S Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 6510 CONDOLENCES Hodgman, Hon. William Michael, AM QC 6510 Reference to Federation Chamber 6512 14:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler by leave—I move: That the resumption of the debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. William Michael Hodgman be referred to the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. MELZER, Jean Isobelle, OAM 6512 14:09 The SPEAKER 83S I inform the House of the death on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 of Jean Isobelle Melzer, a former senator who represented the state of Victoria from 1974 to 1981. As I have had the pleasure of knowing Jean for many years in her capacity as a local constituent and through her son and daughter-in-law, I would like to put on the record my condolences to the family—Steve, Caroline and their daughter—and to recognise Jean's interesting time in this place and her contribution to it. As a mark of respect to the memory of Jean Melzer, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 83S I thank the House. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 6512 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:10 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor The QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 6512 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Carbon Pricing 6512 14:10 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah My question is to the Prime Minister. Can she confirm that the carbon tax will increase to over $24 a tonne on 1 July and that, if the government is re-elected, it will increase to over $25 a tonne next year? Why is her government's carbon tax going up and up and up when the carbon tax in Europe went down again last night to $6 and New Zealand's carbon tax has just dropped to just 75c? 14:11 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor The Leader of the Opposition well knows, and so do members of this House well know, the government's design of carbon pricing. Yes, there is a fixed price for the first three years—the 'carbon tax' to use the terminology—and then it moves to an emissions trading scheme. When it moves to an emission trading scheme, Australian businesses will get the benefit of the international price for carbon pricing. What is remarkable about this question is that the Leader of the Opposition is quoting prices from other nations when he has spent the best part of two years telling Australians that no-one else in the world is pricing carbon other than Australia. So I thank him for acknowledging— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Abbott EZ5 Yes, Madam Speaker. It was a very simple question: why is our price going up and up and up when the price elsewhere is going down and down and down? The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L I thank the Leader of the Opposition for again confirming that he now recognises that nations around the world are putting a price on carbon. What he does not seem to be realising is that he is shooting down one of the principal argument he has used publicly against carbon pricing. He has been out in the Australian community saying, 'Australia shouldn't go it alone; no-one else is doing this,' and then he comes into this chamber and asks about other people's prices. But the hypocrisy does not end there, because, under the government scheme, as we move to an emission trading scheme Australian businesses will be paying the world price—no more, no less. That is why we are doing things like linking our scheme to the scheme in the European Union. Who is opposed to that? Who is opposed to international linking? Who is opposed to Australian businesses having the benefits of the world price? The Leader of the Opposition is! It is specifically ruled out in his sham statements about so-called 'direct action', because this is a policy that does not make any sense and would certainly impose more costs on the Australian nation. Every reputable person who has looked at the Leader of the Opposition's plan has dismissed it as nonsense. It is the kind of policy you cobble together when you have been running a fear campaign and then you are not sure what to do next. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he would be better advised to adopt the position he clearly had when he was a minister in the Howard government—that is, a position of putting a price on carbon. This is weathervane politics which is not in the national interest, not in the interests of Australian businesses, not in the interests of jobs and not in the interests of a clean energy future. All of this should be abandoned by the Leader of the Opposition. He should have the decency to do what Prime Minister Howard did and endorse carbon pricing. 14:14 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If the Prime Minister is right and Australia is somehow paying the world price, does she stand by the government's budget estimate that the carbon price will rise to $38 a tonne by 2020? If she does not, what happens to the government's budget and isn't the black hole just getting bigger and bigger and bigger? (Time expired) 14:15 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor What the Leader of the Opposition's supplementary question shows is if you are going to run a fear campaign month after month after month it pays to spend just a tiny moment of your time getting to grips with the policy proposition you are running the fear campaign against. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition has never done that. He grabbed a slogan out of the air—carbon tax going up and up and up; no more Whyalla; no more lamb roasts; and on and on it went—and he has never got to grips with the policy proposition. To the Leader of the Opposition, who has simply got no idea about this matter: let me explain it to him again. We put in place carbon pricing. It has a fixed price for the first three years and then you move to an emissions trading scheme which we have worked to link internationally so businesses get the benefit of the world price. Then, of course, what happens with the budget is what happens with other budget figures, and that is that experts in Treasury make forecasts for the government—and the shadow Treasurer rolls his eyes! You are sacking everybody in Treasury, are you? Every professional gone if the shadow Treasurer is ever the Treasurer? Well, of course not. The same professionals will assist the Leader of the Opposition if he is ever Prime Minister and they will give him the same advice, and that advice will be that carbon pricing is the cheapest, most effective way of tackling climate change. Indonesia-Australia Leaders Meeting 6514 14:16 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the third annual Indonesia-Australia Leaders Meeting next month? 14:16 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Werriwa for his question because it enables me to advise the House about the arrangements that have been made for the third annual Indonesia-Australia Leaders Meeting. I will visit Indonesia at the invitation of President Yudhoyono next month to attend this third annual leaders-level dialogue. Of course Indonesia is a close friend, a neighbour and one of our most important bilateral partners. Our relationship with Indonesia is both broad and very deep. We share in common so many interests. We have worked patiently and methodically to build the bonds between our two countries, stronger economic links, and we are working now on greater economic cooperation through the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership and people-to-people links—that is, young people in particular from Indonesia coming to Australia, studying here, and Australians going there. Australians certainly go in huge numbers to Indonesia, the most visited country other than New Zealand for Australians. We share not only strong bilateral relationships, doing things like fighting transnational crime, including people-smuggling; we share regional priorities and global priorities. With my visit it will be almost 130 times that there have been high-level visits and exchanges between our two countries under this government. That is equivalent to a visit almost every three weeks. We have a lot to talk about and a lot to work on. The comprehensive nature of this partnership does need to be recognised by anyone who wants to play a role in shaping this nation's future, which is why I was dismayed to see today that the Leader of the Opposition apparently does not understand that I have visited Indonesia before and that I have met with President Yudhoyono before. Of course I have met with him before. We have conducted a number of leader-level discussions. We have attended many multilateral fora together, including the East Asia Summit, the G20 and APEC; we have been at the UN together. We have worked comprehensively on the relationship between our two countries. I am very much looking forward to taking the next steps in that broad and deep relationship when I visit Indonesia at the request of the President, at his invitation, next month. Carbon Pricing 6515 14:19 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer that the price of New Zealand carbon permits has decreased by almost two-thirds in the last 12 months. Why is the government increasing the carbon tax on 1 July this year to over $24 a tonne, a rate 32 times higher than New Zealand's rate of only 75c a tonne? 14:20 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank the shadow Treasurer for this question, because putting in place an emissions trading scheme is the least cost, most efficient way of reducing carbon pollution. We know that; that is the recommendation of virtually every expert inquiry conducted anywhere in the world. As the Prime Minister was saying before, we have opted for a fixed price in the early stages of the scheme, a fixed price to provide certainty and a fixed price to provide predictability. We are already seeing the outcome of that process: a significant reduction in emissions. What all of these questions really boil down to is that those opposite are so embarrassed by their direct action scheme they have to come out and somehow try to discredit an emissions trading scheme. Their scheme will cost the average Australian household $1,200 a year because what they have decided to do is to tax individuals— Mr Hockey DK6 Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order going to relevance: why is our carbon tax over $24 a tonne, New Zealand's 75c a tonne? The SPEAKER 83S The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call and will refer to the question before the chair. Mr SWAN 2V5 The answer is that we have a fixed price period before we move to a floating price—a very simple answer, but one that those opposite will not acknowledge because they are so embarrassed about their incapacity to respond to dangerous climate change and the fact that their policy is such an embarrassment. What they are going to do is to tax the average family $1,200 and give that money to big business, whereas our scheme works the opposite way. What we do is have the large polluters pay money for their pollution. What we do is assist industry with that money and we also provide assistance to punters in the community. Those on the other side have an opposite approach. What they will do is tax punters. You are so embarrassed by that fact that you come in here and try to discredit a carbon pricing scheme which is delivering reductions in emissions and making sure that we will be a prosperous country in the rest of this century. Shame on you. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 6515 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:22 The SPEAKER 83S Before I call the member for Deakin, I wish to welcome to the gallery this afternoon His Excellency Mr Hamadi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. We welcome him to the House this afternoon. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 6516 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Education 6516 14:23 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin My question is to the Prime Minister. How will all Australian schools benefit from our plan for school improvement; and what is the choice facing schools and parents? 14:23 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for Deakin for his question. I thank him for his deep interest in his local schools. I have had the opportunity to spend some time with him in his electorate and meet with some of the schoolchildren there. I know he wants them to have the best possible future. He wants them to go to the best possible schools. I thank him for his question because it enables me to say to the House that the role and responsibility of government is to do the big things that are necessary to shape our nation's future; to make sure that our country has a stronger, smarter and fairer future; to get the big things done that invest in that future on behalf of all Australians. That is why the government has time after time worked on major reforms which will strengthen us as a country—including creating a clean energy future; including investing in the National Broadband Network; including reforms in health and aged care; including building the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and, including, very importantly, so that every child and every Australian can have the best possible future, investing in those great institutions that create opportunity in our country—that is, Australian schools. We are investing in early childhood education because we want every child to get a flying start into the best possible life. We have created more apprenticeships and traineeships than have existed before in our country, because we want young people to have those all important skills, those trade qualifications for the future. We have created more university places than there have ever been before. We have put more into research and we have put more into innovation, because we want this country to be as smart as we know it can be. But we now want to ensure that every child in every school gets a great education so they can make the most of those opportunities for the future. This is, firstly, something that you build when you recognise the current funding model is broken. I recognise that; Premier O'Farrell recognises that; unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition defends that broken model. And then, having recognised that the model is broken, we come up with a well researched, careful plan for change, which is what we have been doing over more than five years now. Then you seek agreement for it. Once again I am calling on premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to do the right thing, to resist the political pressure from the opposition, to put our kids first. They should be recognising in their leadership of their areas that there is something more important to them than succumbing to the political pressure of the opposition, and that is getting every child in the schools they have responsibility for a great education. Carbon Pricing 6516 14:26 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the government plans to legislate to extend her carbon tax to heavy vehicles on 1 July next year? If so, will the rate of the tax be set at $25.40 per tonne? 14:26 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor Thank you. This is starting to resemble a sort of catch-up hour for the opposition on details of a policy proposal that they have been running a fear campaign about for the best part of two years now. The government's policy on carbon pricing and heavy vehicles has been announced for a long period of time; and, yes, we do believe that heavy vehicles should be subject to a carbon price. There is absolutely nothing new in that. What appears to be new from the opposition's questioning today is: one, they appear to be trying to inform themselves of the details of a scheme that they have been out actually arguing against. You would have thought a rational person, an intelligent person, a clever person, would study the policy proposition first and then work out whether they were opposed to it or in favour of it—clearly not this Leader of the Opposition. He decided to go out with the opposition first and he is just trying to understand it now. Opposition members interjecting— Ms GILLARD 83L I speak to the nature of the interjections that have been coming across the dispatch box as all of this has been in progress, because those interjections have all been about other prices in other countries. Has the opposition today moved from its 'subsidy for polluters plan' back to saying that it supports an emissions trading scheme? Are we seeing a huge move by the opposition today? They are actually giving up their current policy and saying they support an emissions trading scheme. If they are saying that they support an emissions trading scheme with an internationally linked price, guess what? One is already legislated and one is going to come into existence. Thank you very much for finally coming around to supporting it and getting back into the same position you had under the leadership of Prime Minister John Howard. It is truly remarkable. Then of course in terms of the backflips and lack of care of the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition has been on the record in the past, and I quote the Leader of the Opposition: 'I also think that, if you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax? Why not ask motorists to pay more?' All motorists, all households, all families, all mums, all dads—the Leader of the Opposition may be embracing that again as part of his backflipping today. Whilst the opposition wanders around on this topic, not sure what to do next, because the fear campaign is running out of puff, we will continue to get on with the job of reducing carbon pollution, of addressing dangerous climate change, of doing it in the cheapest possible way, of doing it in the way that responsible conservatives support. The Leader of the Opposition can stay there with his extreme position and try to sell that to the Australian people. 14:29 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Speaker, I ask a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. If a carbon tax is such a good idea, and if it was always supported by the Prime Minister, why was she not honest with the Australian people about it before the last election? Why weren't you honest, Prime Minister? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister has the call; the last part of the question was out of order. 14:30 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor You can always tell when the Leader of the Opposition is not coping with an argument, because he goes for the personal abuse. So you can always tell when he is not coping with an argument— Honourable members interjecting— Ms GILLARD 83L Well, the Leader of the Opposition is not coping with an argument! He is not coping with the argument because he is a man who stood alongside Prime Minister Howard in 2007 and stood for election on a platform of an emissions trading scheme. He is the man who had been out publicly supporting carbon pricing, and he is the man who described his change of position not as anything to do with the interests of the Australian nation and not anything to do with tackling climate change. He went to his closest colleagues and said, 'I'm a weather vane on this. I just get out the opinion polling and I work out what is in my political interests. I don't worry about the national interest. I don't worry about seas rising. I don't worry about climate change. I don't worry about any of that. The future is too complicated for me; it would require deep thinking.' So that is why— Mr Abbott EZ5 Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a very simple question: why wasn't she honest about this before the last election? She should answer that question. The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L The Leader of the Opposition is proving my point. He only has his current position because he believes it is in his political interest. I suggest that he goes back to the position he had when he was standing alongside John Howard, listening to John Howard spruik the merits of an emissions trading scheme. At least you believed in that! (Time expired) Mr Crean interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! No, the member for Hotham does not have the call, that is why I am reprimanding him. Sunshine Coast Health and Social Wellbeing Learning Precinct 6518 14:32 Mr SLIPPER 0V5 Fisher My question is to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Asian Century Policy. And I am pleased that as Speaker I arranged for the clock not to start until the question is asked! The minister would be aware that I have been pushing strongly for the approval of a $46 million grant to enable the $63 million Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE Sunshine Coast Health and Social Wellbeing Learning Precinct to proceed, augmenting the development of the new Sunshine Coast University Hospital and, ultimately, training 50,000 workers for the coast's future health industry. Will the minister confirm that the approval of this grant is being seriously considered, and the timing of its announcement? The SPEAKER 83S The last time I checked, I was the Speaker. The Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research has the call. 14:33 Dr EMERSON 83V Rankin I do thank the member for Fisher for this very important question, because the government indeed has considered the Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE's Sunshine Coast Health and Social Wellbeing Learning Precinct as a part of the $500 million regional priorities round of the Education Investment Fund. The regional priorities round is designed to give students, staff and researchers in regional Australia access to world-class teaching, training and research facilities. I am pleased to advise the House, and the member for Fisher, that my office today has contacted the Sunshine Coast TAFE to advise that we will be providing $46.8 million to fund the new Sunshine Coast Health and Social Wellbeing Learning Precinct, which will offer TAFE students vocational education and training in certificate I to advanced diploma courses. The precinct is expected to generate more than 320 jobs during the construction phase, making a significant contribution to the Sunshine Coast economy. The precinct will include a community space funded by TAFE and its partners to house local health-related clinical and community programs. In addition, it will incorporate the University of the Sunshine Coast's node of the Cooperative Research Centre for Young People, Wellbeing and Information Technology. There is expected to be a sharp increase in regional demand for health workers, and this centre will accommodate an additional 950 full-time-equivalent student places within the first three years of operation, which will double student capacity. So, that is good news—good news for the Sunshine Coast. I thank the member for Fisher for his ongoing interest and advocacy. Other announcements in relation to the regional priorities round will be made shortly. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 6519 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:35 The SPEAKER 83S I have been advised that in the gallery today we have Mr David Rotem, a member of the Knesset in Israel. We welcome him to the chamber this afternoon. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 6519 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Education Funding 6519 14:35 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Treasurer. How does Australia's combination of economic strengths make us the envy of the world? And how will the government's plans for jobs and growth ensure our economy remains strong for generations to come? 14:35 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I would like to thank the member for Moreton for that very important question, because the Australian economy has emerged as one of the strongest in the developed world and we have emerged that way because we have got the big economic calls right and we will continue to get them right after the next five years as well. We have had a period of remarkable global uncertainty, but we have performed so much better than other developed economies. We have an economy which is 14 per cent larger than it was at the end of 2007; an absolutely outstanding job creation record—almost one million additional jobs; and, of course, low unemployment at 5.5 per cent, low interest rates, strong public finances and a AAA credit rating from the three major global rating agencies for the very first time in our history. And, of course, we have low debt. All of these facts are something that we in this chamber should all be very proud of. Of course, what we now need to do is to build for the future. We need to build on this strength and we need to take the resilience we have demonstrated over the last five years and make sure that we make the investments for the future. Nothing is more important there than our investment in education—our investment in A National Plan for School Improvement—because if we are going to win this economic race in the Asian century we have to win the education race. It is very important that we get all states to sign on to this reform. In my home state of Queensland, Premier Newman does not want to sign on because he is taking his instructions from the Leader of the Opposition. This is worth $3.8 billion over six years for Queensland schools—$2.2 million extra on average per school in Queensland. Every single school in Queensland will be better off. There will be extra resources in the classroom, extra training for teachers and more support for the kids when they need it. This will mean that every kid in Queensland will get a better start in life if only the Liberal and National parties would put the children of Queensland first and their own political interests last. They have a week to sign up. We want to see some real interest in this issue in Queensland. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lift all of our students up so we can make the most of the next five years and beyond. 14:38 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The Treasurer has spoken about what better school funding means for kids in Queensland. What would this mean for the 21,000 schoolkids in my electorate of Moreton? 14:38 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I thank him for that supplementary question. I think there are something like 21,000 students in Moreton, including Stanley, his son. They will benefit tremendously from this program. In Moreton alone that is an extra $106 million in funding on offer over six years. If you look across the state, in the electorate of Brisbane there are 25,000 students, in the electorate of Ryan there are 26,000 students and in the electorate of Dawson there are 28,000 students. Everyone on this side of the House is supporting additional resources to our schools right across the state of Queensland and right across Australia. How is it that the Premier of New South Wales can sign up but the Premier of Queensland cannot? The answer is: straight politics—the negative politics of the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party. This government will always put our students first and politics last. Indonesia 6520 14:39 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to reports of her impending visit to Indonesia in early July. When the Prime Minister is in Indonesia will she apologise for weakening Australia's border protection laws in 2008 that reinvigorated the people-smuggling trade in Indonesia and, to use President Yudhoyono's words, put the sugar back on the table? 14:39 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor When I visit Indonesia I will pursue broadening and deepening our relationship with Indonesia. We have strengthened that relationship. We have worked patiently over time. We, under the life of the Labor government, have created the annual leaders-level exchange. That was a very important development in our relationship. Apart from those annual exchanges with President Yudhoyono, of course I have the opportunity to see him in a wide variety of other forums. We talk at the G20. Ms Julie Bishop 83P Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. My question went specifically to raising the topic of people smuggling with the president and whether she will apologise for changing the laws that reinvigorated the people-smuggling trade in Indonesia. The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister has the call and is being relevant to the question. Ms GILLARD 83L I was asked about my forthcoming visit to Indonesia and I was making the point that it builds on the back of a number of exchanges with President Yudhoyono that this government has had and that I have had as Prime Minister: engaging in annual leaders-level meetings, engaging in a number of contacts beyond that, attending the G20 together to talk about the shape of the global economy, attending the East Asia Summit together to talk about the future of our region, attending APEC together to talk about economic cooperation and growth in our region of the world, participating at events at the UN and attending Indonesia, particularly the Bali Democracy Forum as a co-host at President Yudhoyono's invitation. So when I meet with President Yudhoyono I will talk through the breadth and depth of the relationship between our two countries. Of course that will go to the work that we do on transnational crime, including people smuggling. What I will not do, of course, is take the approach of the opposition—that is, I will not take the approach of pretending that Indonesia have agreed to things when they have not. I will not take the approach of pretending that Indonesian officials say one thing in private and one thing in public—that is, I will not take the approach of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which is delivering those kinds of insults to Indonesia. I also will not take the approach of the Leader of the Opposition, which is to walk around when a TV camera is there and beat his chest but when in front of President Yudhoyono, the President of Indonesia, lack the courage and the confidence to raise policy issues. I will not take that approach either. We will continue to build the mature relationship between our two countries and keep strengthening it for the future. That is what leadership requires, not this cheap posturing. Education Funding 6521 14:42 Mr CHEESEMAN HW7 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important for all states and territories to sign up to the National Plan for School Improvement? 14:43 Mr GARRETT HV4 Kingsford Smith I thank the member for his question. The answer is that it is important that every single student in our nation is able to get the resources applied in their school to their needs. That is why state premiers and chief ministers need to sign onto the National Plan for School Improvement. We are willing to invest almost $10 billion in additional Commonwealth money to make sure that kids get better support in schools. The Premier of New South Wales understands that. The Premier of South Australia understands that. At the school level I think people get it. We have principals in Victoria who understand it. I saw an article in the Colac Herald, which is fromthe member's electorate. On the front page we have a principal saying: It would mean we would be able to implement literary and numeracy support programs … A secondary principal said it would provide the 'best possible education experience for every student'. Let us look at Queensland. I think they get it on the ground in Queensland as well. Kenmore State High School, which is in the electorate of Ryan, would see their per student public funding grow between 2013 and 2019 at approximately 40 per cent. That is why in the letter the Kenmore State High School Parents and Citizens Association said that the current system is failing too many children and this important education reform will provide resources where they are needed most. It is actually time for those opposite to face up to these facts. The fact is that under A National Plan for School Improvement, their schools will see more resources going to help those students in need. The Kenmore High School P&C Association meets on the third Monday evening of each month. Assuming that ministers and shadow ministers are not banned from going to a school in Queensland, I call on the P&C to consider suspending standing orders and bring in the member for Sturt so that he can explain why he wants to sack one in seven hard-working teachers; bring in the Leader of the Opposition to explain why he thinks providing resources to government schools is an injustice. They could even bring in the member for Bowman: he could come across the city from the other side and he can hold up his 'I give a Gonski' poster, couldn't he? That is what it has come to. All of these resources that are there to assist the schools in your electorates, some of you are supporting it and, at the same time, some of you others are pretending that it will not make a difference at all. It is time for state premiers to put the interests of their students first and sign up to A National Plan for School Improvement. Better schools for all Australians. Live Animal Exports 6522 14:46 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister is in Indonesia, will she apologise for banning the live cattle exports without notice in 2011 and, in so doing, undermining Indonesia's ability to feed its people and damaging what is arguably our most important bilateral relationship? 14:46 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor To the Leader of the National Party, and to the opposition generally, on these important matters—something as important as our relationship with Indonesia—they have really got to try and keep up. They really do need to try and keep up. The Leader of the Opposition was out today trying to pretend to the Australian people that somehow, as Prime Minister, I had never visited Indonesia. Completely ridiculous. That of course would be the kind of thing we would expect the Leader of the Opposition to say because today, too, he was out saying how the coalition had supported me travelling to New York to lobby for the Security Council bid, when of course what happened— Mr Truss GT4 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: this is obviously a problem with relevance. We are not interested in her holidays and tourism; we are interested in if she is going to apologise— The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and will refer to the question before the chair. Ms GILLARD 83L I am referring to our relationship with Indonesia, and just making the point that once again the opposition is getting itself in a mess—the same kind of mess it got into when the Leader of the Opposition, despite his statement today, criticised me for going to New York to lobby for our Security Council bid, saying instead I should have gone to Jakarta, not realising that in New York was President Yudhoyono as well. But anyway, in all this confusion about Indonesia on the opposition side, let me be very clear to the Leader of the National Party: because we work on this relationship every day, because we have had exchanges numbering almost 130, because there have been comprehensive discussions between me and the president, and between ministers and their counterparts— The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order other than relevance. Mr Abbott EZ5 Yes, Madam Speaker. You did ask the Prime Minister to address the question, and she is in fact defying you. The question was about apologising for the live cattle ban. The SPEAKER 83S The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. As I have explained every day this week, the question is the entirety of the question. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L Let me continue as I was: because we work on this relationship every day, because we have so many high-level exchanges and visits, issues relating to live animal exports have been comprehensively worked through between this government and the government of Indonesia. To the member who asked the question, I suggest he tries to keep up. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The Prime Minister should not have to shout to be heard in this chamber. The Prime Minister has the call. Ms GILLARD 83L Thank you very much. On issues of apology, I suggest that the Leader of the National Party would be better off speaking to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and seeing if she will apologise for insulting Indonesia, if she will apologise for pretending that their officials say one thing in public and another thing in private. The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Mackellar has the call. This is the third point of order. Mrs Bronwyn Bishop SE4 Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would refer you to page 569 of the Practice and, without invoking standing order 75, the Practice makes it quite clear that you have sufficient authority to deal with irrelevancies and tedious and repetitious answers and ask her to sit down. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. I remind the member for Mackellar I also have the authority to deal with repetitious points of order. The Leader of the House, on the point of order— Mr Albanese R36 Indeed, Speaker, you do, and I was going to refer to just that issue on page 191 of Practice, as very helpfully pointed out by the member for Mackellar. The SPEAKER 83S The Prime Minister has the call and will return to the question before the chair. Ms GILLARD 83L I was asked about apologies, and I was suggesting that the apologies necessary are by the opposition. And while they are in apology mode, they might want to apologise to the Australian people for peddling a slogan and false hope about turning boats around—something that the Leader of the Opposition did not have the courage to raise with the President of Indonesia when he met him. Superannuation 6523 14:51 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation. How are the government's policies helping Australian women build stronger and fairer retirement savings? What other policies are there, and what would be their impact? 14:52 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the member for Chifley for his question. He raises a very important matter, and that is the gender savings gap that exists in Australia. It is a fact that women in Australia earn on average 17 per cent less than men; it is a fact that 2.2 million Australian working women earn less than $37,000; it is a fact that Australian working women are more likely to be in part-time jobs; it is a fact that women have more periods of broken service and employment because they take time off to raise families; it is also a fact that when women retire, they have, on average, in their superannuation balances $149,000, whereas men have, on average, $266,000. There is clearly a gap in Australia between the retirement savings of men and women. Labor is actually tackling this gap. I will not go on a link about what we are doing with workplace relations, because I think that everyone in Australia knows that Labor is more fair dinkum about the equal treatment of women in the workplace that those opposite. But on superannuation, too, we are tackling this gap. By increasing superannuation from nine to 12 per cent, Labor is giving every woman who goes to work the chance to have a more dignified retirement by increased superannuation savings. A 29-year-old receptionist today earning $45,000, courtesy of Labor's policies, will have an extra $83,000 in retirement. A hairdresser at the age of 20 earning $37,000 will have an extra $111,000, courtesy of Labor lifting super from nine to 12. It is also true to say that by Labor axing the 15 per cent tax on superannuation contributions for 2.2 million Australian working women, we are giving a lot more women the chance to have more money in retirement. That is what we are doing to tackle the gap. But I am asked by the member for Chifley, are there other policies? I regret to inform the House that there are. The opposition, in their reply to the budget, stunned Australian working women by saying that they are going to freeze the increases in superannuation at 9¼ per cent. Why do they want women to retire with less money? The opposition also reconfirm their great big new 15 per cent tax on 2.2 million Australian. I hope that the members of the opposition, when they leave this place this weekend, when they are having their hair cut, when they are going to health services, when they are hearing reports about how their kids have gone at school, when they are in the retail sector, have got the courage to tell these working women: 'We don't want you to retire with as much money'. I hope they have got the courage to look in the face 2.2 million Australian women and say: 'By the way, if you vote coalition, we're going to do you over. We don't value you.' Labor is the only party who wants to see women retire with an adequate, decent retirement. Migration 6524 14:55 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of the bill before the House that seeks to make it harder for skilled migrants to enter Australia on 457 visas. Why is the Prime Minister restricting Australia's orderly skilled migration program while failing to stop the more than 700 boats that have arrived illegally, carrying over 44,000 passengers, since Labor abolished the successful policies of the Howard government? 14:55 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor I thank the member for his question. He obviously completely misunderstands the bill before the House. That has been the theme of the day. The opposition today presented in here, did not know anything about carbon pricing even though they are opposed to it; presented in here trying to lecture about the relationship with Indonesia when they have worked to do so much damage to it. Now we have got the member in this parliament misrepresenting to the parliament and to the Australian people what the bill before the House is actually about. Let me be very clear with the member and very clear with the parliament: what this bill is about is ensuring that 457 visas are used only for the purpose the visa was properly designed for. That is, if there is an Australian who is ready, willing and able to work and has the skills to do so, then that Australian should be able to get a job opportunity. We want to make sure that Australians can get the job opportunities in our nation. Yes, there are times when, because of skill shortages, we do look overseas. To take just one example of that, when the Leader of the Opposition, as health minister, ensured that we were short of doctors and nurses, then it was inevitable that we turned overseas for some of that workforce because you cannot train a doctor and a nurse overnight. As a nation, we should ensure Australian job opportunities are there for Australians, that we never use any of this as an excuse for slashing training the way that it was used as an excuse by the Howard government, that we are investing in the skills and capacities of the Australian people so that they can get those job opportunities in the future and build a life for themselves and their families. I know that the opposition has a different view but they should be very clear about the nature of the difference. We, over here, are sitting with a policy for Australian jobs—a policy about maximising job opportunities for Australians. I understand that the opposition has a contrary view, and their view is that the 457 system should be the mainstay of the immigration program—that is, they want to have a system where it is always an option for employers to get someone from overseas even in circumstances where there are Australians who can do that work. They are the contending policies and we will be out there ensuring that the Australian people understand our policy: Australian jobs at the forefront, Australian jobs at the centre—proudly so—as we invest through Australian training and our schools in the skills and capacities of the Australian people. Health Care 6525 14:58 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra My question is to the Minister for Health. Would the minister update the House on the government's plans to invest in frontline health services for families across Australia? And, are there any obstacles to these services? 14:58 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank the member for Canberra. We had a terrific launch a few days ago of a website that informs all members about the work of the Medicare Locals in their electorate. We had a terrific doctor from Tuggeranong, from the member for Canberra's own area, Dr Rashmi Sharma, who came along to talk about what the Medicare Locals are doing in her area, providing after hours services to frail, aged people, people whose normal doctors are unavailable, sending a locum doctor out to visit that person in their home to make it a little bit easier for them to receive the care they need. There are terrific examples like this all over the country, and members will have received over the last few days information about their own Medicare Local: over 3,000 front-line health workers around Australia; $1.8 billion invested in front-line services, with examples like the expanded after-hours service in Western Sydney run by the Nepean-Blue Mountains Medicare Local, a healthcare outreach service for homeless people run by the Greater Metro South Brisbane Medicare Local, and the provision of free vaccines by the Central Adelaide and Hills Medicare Local at recent children's expos to make sure we keep boosting those rates of immunisation. Unfortunately, we have a situation where the opposition, like with most of the things that we have been discussing today, said no to Medicare Locals and then afterwards said: 'Oh, we don't really know what they stand for. We'd like some more information.' We have had the Leader of the Opposition on the record saying he does not know what Medicare Locals are. So I am going to table the Sydney North Shore and Beaches Medicare Local pamphlet that shows the 26 front-line health workers and what they do in his electorate. We have the member for Dickson, who is also on the record saying that he is suspicious of Medicare Locals; he wants to kill them off. There are GP after-hours services, immunisation drives, suicide prevention, aged and palliative care, with 83 front-line services in the Metro North Brisbane Medicare Local. Ms Macklin PG6 He just wants to get rid of it. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M He does. He wants to get rid of it. He wants to get rid of all 61 Medicare Locals and the $1.8 billion worth of primary care services they provide. But perhaps I should not be surprised because I was very interested to read in the Australian Financial Review recently that Health will not be a high priority for the member for Dickson's party in this year's election. He says in this article, 'I've played a team game in opposition and on occasion that comes at a personal cost, which I have been happy to do.' He is happy to put politics ahead of patient care—and I table that article too. We need to have a debate in this country about health services: a party that invests in front-line services and the party of Medicare that has always stood for equal access to necessary health services versus a party that has cut to the bone, that killed Medicare once and that would kill Medicare again if they had half a chance. Migration 6526 15:02 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to her media release of 23 April 2003 entitled 'Another boat on the way. Another policy failure'. Will the Prime Minister now admit that with over 700 boats entering Australia illegally that represents over 700 failures on Labor's watch? 15:02 Ms GILLARD 83L Lalor This question has been asked in a number of forms before, and I think you can tell it is the night after the Press Gallery ball. To the member who asked the question, what I say to him is we are a government that sought expert advice from an independent panel—the former Chief of the Defence Force, a foreign policy expert and a refugee expert—and we brought proposals to the parliament and the member who asked the question voted for more boats. Taxation 6526 15:03 Ms SAFFIN HVY Page My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation. Minister, how has real tax reform given Australian families a fair go under this government and what would be the impact on families from other approaches to tax reform? 15:03 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I thank the member for Page for her question. This Labor government has delivered real tax reform to ensure that families get a fair go. On top of delivering our three rounds of personal income tax cuts, we have also tripled the tax-free threshold, we have cut taxes on superannuation for low-income earners and we have acted on more than a third of the recommendations of the Henry tax review. Every time we have brought in measures such as these, those opposite have voted against them. They vote against these measures because when it comes to tax reform there is only one type of tax reform those opposite have any interest in and it starts with 'G' and it ends with 'T'—that is right, it is the GST. We know they introduced it and they wanted it to be on everything in the first place. It is in their DNA to increase the GST. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that if they get elected he will have a tax review. You know that when a Liberal tells you that they are going to have a tax review it is really a GST review because they want to increase the GST. We have seen more evidence of that this week. We have seen the New South Wales government handing down their budget a bit earlier this week, and we all know Premier O'Farrell has been running around for months now saying, 'We want to jack up the GST,' and we saw him yesterday go on Sydney talkback radio saying exactly the same thing. I have even seen reports that the New South Wales Liberal Treasurer, Mike Baird, has been out there saying to the business community, 'Look, we've got a plan to cut business taxes and we're going to fund it when we get all this extra GST revenue that we will get.' Those poor old souls in the business community are out there living on a prayer. Well, this bloke is the Bon Jovi of tax reform: he has got business out there living on a prayer. But I tell you what: the state treasurers and premiers are not living on a prayer; they are living on a promise. They are living on a promise from the Leader of the Opposition that if he ever gets elected he will jack up the GST and give them even more GST revenue. We know that because that is what you can always count on from the Liberal Party. Now when it comes to the GST, Australian families will always have a very clear choice: a Labor government that will stand up against any increases or a Liberal Party who will always kick them in the guts by jacking up the GST. Migration 6527 15:06 Mr ROBB FU4 Goldstein My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer that the government's budget for asylum seekers who arrive illegally by boat next year is a record $2.9 billion based on 1,000 arrivals per month. Given that illegal boat arrivals are now occurring at a rate of more than 3,000 per month, will the Treasurer admit that these estimates are incorrect and undertake to revise the estimates and report to the House before the parliament rises on the true cost to the budget next year of illegal boat arrivals? 15:06 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley We stand by all of our budget estimates and they will be updated in the normal way. But really what's all this about? The embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition, who is the best friend the people smugglers ever had because he came into this House and voted against a solution— Mr Pyne 9V5 Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would remind the Treasurer, through you, that people smugglers are responsible for the deaths of hundreds and hundreds of people, and to refer to the leader as the best friend that people smugglers ever had is deeply offensive. I would ask him to withdraw it. The SPEAKER 83S The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat! For the good of the parliament I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. The Treasurer has the call. Mr SWAN 2V5 I withdraw. The truth is that the Houston committee prepared a range of recommendations. We brought one of them to this House—the Malaysian arrangement—which would have had a fundamental impact on boat arrivals. The consequence of their refusal to come on board for that important reform has led to more boats, and he should be ashamed of it. Infrastructure 6528 15:07 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Minister, I understand there is a historic event occurring in Holbrook this Sunday. Will you inform the House about that event and advise what significance it will have for the country? 15:08 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I thank the member for Throsby for his question. Indeed, Sunday will be a historic day. The Holbrook bypass having been completed means that for the first time, more than a century since Federation, we will have a fully duplicated Hume Highway between our two great cities of Melbourne and Sydney—for the first time. This Labor government has got it done—808 kilometres of it, nearly $1 billion put into the Hume Highway since we were elected—100 per cent federally funded, the Hume Highway upgrade. It is consistent with what we have done in the Pacific Highway, where we are getting on with the job of full duplication—almost $8 billion compared with $1.3 billion under the former government over 12 long years; and the Bruce Highway, $5.7 billion, compared with $1.3 billion over the 12 years of the Howard government. This will be an exciting day for the community and a great day for the nation. Almost two centuries after explorers Hume and Hovel plotted a path from Sydney south to Port Phillip Bay, Australians will finally be able to enjoy a safe and separated 21st century road. Those explorers took 2½ months; it can now be done in less than half a day. Road safety will be a big winner as a result of that. It is consistent with this government's approach. When the Prime Minister is there with me on Sunday we can take pride that this is a government that has doubled the roads budget, that has increased the rail budget by more than 10 times, that has invested more into urban public transport since our election in 2007 than all previous governments combined—building infrastructure for the future, creating jobs today but boosting future productivity through nation-building investment. It contrasts with those opposite, who don't have proper plans and don't know anything about Infrastructure Australia and proper processes—we have seen that—who just have thought bubbles, bubbles which have all the oomph of one of the light beer shandies that the Leader of the Opposition loves so much. Their idea of a costing is to flip over the coaster and just write it out and say, 'That is our proposal for funding.' We have seen it. They do not go through proper processes. We do and that is why Labor has historically always been the party of nation building. Sunday's event will confirm that. (Time expired) Ms Gillard 83L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 6528 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Matter of Privilege 6528 15:11 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter On indulgence—on 27 May 2013 the member for Tangney raised a matter of privilege concerning the possible provision of false or misleading evidence by Mr Tom Burbidge of Lockheed Martin Corporation during an appearance before the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Mr Burbidge's testimony concerned the Joint Strike Fighter Program and was provided on 20 March 2012 during the committee's review of the Defence annual report of 2010-11. Speaker, you responded to the member for Tangney by advising that, prior to you giving the matter consideration, it should be brought to the attention of the committee and dealt with there. On behalf of the committee I wish to advise you of the outcome of the committee's deliberations on this matter. Prior to Dr Jensen's statement here, the Defence Subcommittee, of which Dr Jensen is the deputy chair, had concluded its examination of this matter. At its meeting on 12 March 2013 the subcommittee invited a response to Dr Jensen's concerns from the Chief Executive Officer and President of Lockheed Martin Corporation, Ms Marillyn A Hewson. The subcommittee inquired if, in retrospect to and in light of a December 2012 report on the joint strike fighter by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, which was brought to the members' attention by Dr Jensen, the company endorses Mr Burbidge's testimony to the committee. Ms Hewson responded in correspondence dated 16 April 2013 by saying that Lockheed Martin: … believes that Mr Burbidge's statements were accurate in all material aspects. Ms Hewson went on to state: We recognise the possibility that various statements contained in these materials could create a misunderstanding. We therefore hope to dispel any such misunderstandings with the clarifications included herein. The correspondence goes on to clarify the distinction between 'Key Performance Parameters' and other performance capabilities, and responds to the three specific issues—acceleration, sustained turn performance and weight—which were raised by Dr Jensen and that could appear to be contradicted by information contained in the operational test and evaluation report. The Defence Subcommittee considered Ms Hewson's response and Dr Jensen's critique of her correspondence at its meeting on 16 May 2013. Speaker, the view of the subcommittee is that a prima facie case for the alleged contempt had not been established. I should note that Dr Jensen alone dissented on that question. The subcommittee formed the view that it had not been deliberately misled or presented with false evidence by Mr Burbidge. Further, the subcommittee formally resolved not to proceed with the privilege matter canvassed by Dr Jensen and, importantly, not to authorise publication of the correspondence from Lockheed Martin. The full committee has now also considered this matter. The committee agrees with the decision of the defence subcommittee. There is another important issue in connection with this matter that I wish to refer to. In raising the privilege matter the member for Tangney presented papers to the House, including correspondence by the chair of the subcommittee and Lockheed Martin. The defence subcommittee had previously asked Lockheed Martin if it would give permission for its correspondence to be published. The company subsequently asked that its correspondence not be published. Choosing to respect the company's wishes, the subcommittee resolved that the correspondence would not be authorised for publication. Regardless, Dr Jensen presented the correspondence in the House when he raised the matter of privilege. The effect of this was to disclose the documents, which are now, of course, publicly available. I can advise that the committee has decided not to raise a matter of privilege in relation to the member for Tangney's unauthorised disclosures, because it does not feel or consider that the conduct constitutes a substantial interference in its work. Nevertheless, the committee notes that the unauthorised disclosure of correspondence was contrary to the expressed wishes of the defence subcommittee and breaches the undertaking made to the company with which it was corresponding in good faith. This, the committee believes, is deeply regrettable. The committee is disappointed that a member has chosen to act in such a regrettable manner and expresses concern over the dangerous precedent such conduct could set. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 6530 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:16 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 83S Does the member for Cowan claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SIMPKINS HWE I certainly do. The Prime Minister in question time said I had voted for more boats. That is not true. The government did not have the courage to bring the Malaysian solution to a vote. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Cowan will resume his seat. 15:16 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 83S Does the member for Sturt claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PYNE 9V5 I do—yet again by the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, who continues to make the statement that I want to dismiss one in seven teachers that work in schools. I point out to the House yet again—it must be the 20th time—that of course the federal government does not run any schools and does not employ any teachers, so the federal minister for education cannot dismiss any teachers, which makes the statement false. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 6530 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Reports Nos 49 and 50 of 2012-13 6530 15:17 The SPEAKER 83S I present the following Auditor-General's reports for 2012-13: Audit report No.49, Financial statement audit: interim phase of the audits of the financialstatements of major general governmentsector agencies for the year ending30 June 2013, and Audit report No. 50, Performance audit: Administration of the GP Super Clinicsprogram: Department of Health and Ageing. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. BUSINESS 6530 BUSINESS Rearrangement 6530 15:18 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I seek leave to move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent private Members' business, order of the day No. 4 (Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013) on the Notice Paper, for the Federation Chamber being returned to the House, and debated and proceeded with forthwith. Leave not granted. Mr WILKIE C2T I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent private Members' business, order of the day No. 4 (Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013) on the Notice Paper, for the Federation Chamber being returned to the House, and debated and proceeded with forthwith. Speaker, if I could just take up a moment of your time, I seek to suspend standing and sessional orders because I think it is absolutely vital that this bill be dealt with before this parliament rises and because, without this suspension, the bill will lapse. The essence of this bill is to preserve the high standards currently in place among maritime engineers in Australia. There is an urgent need to preserve those standards, because there is every possibility that the current pressure to drive the standards down will succeed and, in particular, that the push to drive down the standards will result in the minimum training period being reduced from three years to just one year. We are a maritime country, and it is simply not an option to reduce maritime standards, which would diminish our good name and, more importantly, put our crews, our passengers and our vessels at risk. That is why this suspension must be supported. I would add that it is my understanding that the Selection Committee had in fact decided that this matter should be dealt with today and the government has somehow moved the business to the Federation Chamber. I think we should respect the wishes of the Selection Committee. I think— The SPEAKER 83S Can I just caution the member for Denison. Discussing what goes on in the Selection Committee without having seen reports is, as I have mentioned to others, a breach of privilege, and it is not actually up to the Selection Committee where or how things go. I am just giving you the same advice I gave to the member for Cook earlier this week. Mr WILKIE C2T Thank you, Speaker. I may need to apologise, but my understanding was that the Selection Committee had in fact selected the bill to be dealt with today. The SPEAKER 83S We will not go into discussion. Mr WILKIE C2T Thank you, Speaker. In any case, there is only a week left in this parliament, and I would hope that every member of this parliament would be mindful of the need to maintain the very high standards of our maritime crews. Surely we do not want to put them at risk, we do not want to put the passengers on their vessels at risk, we do not want put the vessels themselves at risk and we do not want to put our nation's very good name in this regard at risk. That is why I think that standing and sessional orders should be suspended, we should bring this down from the Federation Chamber right away and we should debate it and deal with it today. The SPEAKER 83S Is the motion seconded? 15:21 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I second the motion and exercise my right to speak. I represent the most populated area of the Great Barrier Reef, and we constantly have vessels losing their motors and smashing onto the reef, letting oil go free all over the place. I have said on many occasions that we need passages set out and we need nautical coordinates that are available to all vessels that go through these passages. We have failed to get that off successive governments, but it is absolutely vitally important that when ships come into or operate in Australian waters we have someone there who knows what they are doing with respect to motors and engines. A lot of the vessels coming in now are flagged overseas vessels and the people that are on them simply do not have anything like the qualifications that are required. A person who gets on a boat in Australia should have some sort of guarantee that the person operating and responsible for those engines knows what they are doing. They need to have a piece of paper that says that they are a trained and certified person. Any effort to lower that standard is very serious indeed. Vessels are coming into our waters now with no standards at all. I can tell you of a number of cases that have occurred where we found out the vessel floundered because there was no-one on board who could fix a motor or whatever else needed to be fixed to keep the vessel functioning. To give you one quick example, I was sitting with the head of the Coast Guard in Cardwell and he said, 'At 11:30 I have to vacate, I have to go out and get a vessel coming in.' I asked, 'Why? What is going in?' He said, 'A vessel has lost its motor and it is smashing up against the seven- or 14-kilometre pier, whatever it is, at Lucinda.' The vessel loses its motor and is smashing up against the pier. Not only will that do incredible damage to that very valuable piece of Australian infrastructure, but it is going to sink on the reef, leaving its oil all over the place. There is, of course, loss of life. Most importantly of all, we have a lot of tourist vessels operating. When people get on those vessels, they should have the confidence that the person in charge—as the old varsity song used to say—of the engine room is a varsity engineer. We do not require him to go to university but we do require him to have technical tertiary qualifications that enable him to do the job. They need to be a little bit more than just a diesel fitter. I think we should be going in the opposite direction to people trying to say, 'No, we should not have these rules, anyone can go into an engine room.' That is not where we want to be going. In fact, we need to be going in the opposite direction. So I absolutely applaud the resolution on suspension of standing orders from the honourable member and back it very strongly. It is a very serious issue for anyone, particularly anyone who represents marine tourism and commercial boats that are carrying coal, copper, beef and whatever in and out of North Queensland and over the Great Barrier Reef. We have a particular interest in this authorisation which we are acquiring here. So we plead with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to realise that consideration of downgrading is completely out of the question. We must upgrade the requirements and licensing of these people. Vessels coming in from overseas should all have a certified engineer in the engine room. I very strongly support my colleague from Denison. 15:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I am opposed to this opportunistic resolution from the member for Denison and the member for Kennedy. I say with respect to them: don't come here and lecture about what the alleged interests of Australian shipping are before you are actually aware of the facts of what this legislation is and will do. The shadow minister has not even had a briefing from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority about these issues. This is a deeply irresponsible and deeply opportunistic position that would lead to a shutting down of Australian ships and a consequential loss of massive productivity for our nation. This proposition suggests that there is something before the Australian parliament to downgrade. There is no such proposal before the Australian parliament, none. The union responsible for putting this legislation forward has not bothered to knock on my door, as the minister in a Labor government, about the consequences of this legislation. They have not bothered to knock on the door and the deputy chair of the House of Representatives committee in this area knows full well how irresponsible this legislation is. He should talk to the leader of his party about it because his leader has also had direct briefings from Australian shipowners, the Australian shipping industry—you know, the one that put the red ensign on the back of the flags—that say they will not be able to operate if this legislation came in. Whatever motivation people have for this being put forward, this is deeply opportunistic as is this suspension of standing orders. The opposition over here is allowing and wanting this to go forward, having put forward a proposition from the member for Cook. If they vote for this proposition to suspend standing orders, they will be voting to knock off his MPI—the so-called big issue he is concerned about and that the opposition are concerned about. That is why standing orders should not be suspended. They also should not be suspended on the basis of what happened earlier today. What happened earlier today was that an amendment was moved on the floor of the parliament by a government member that had not been seen by an opposition member When that was pointed out to me as Leader of the House, even though there was a majority sitting over here, I quite rightly moved the adjournment of that. If this bill were to be brought on and were it to be allowed further debate—and there are further speakers from the government who wish to speak on this bill, what does this do? The opposition's position in supporting this suspension—if they indeed support it—says that, when you have government bills before this parliament, everyone has a right to speak, but, when you have a private members' bill, it has a higher authority than a government bill. It can have just a couple of speakers in the Federation Chamber, and then we will bring it down here. Let me tell you: if it is brought down here, there will be considerable debate and a range of amendments to the legislation so it does not shut down the industry. There will be in the order of more than 80 that will be debated one by one. If we want to go down this track—and I say to the member for Denison and the member for Kennedy: with due respect, neither of them nor any of the other crossbenchers can say that at all times I have not attempted to facilitate fair and proper consideration of items of business that they have wanted to put forward. To move a suspension of standing orders to bring on a private members' bill to debate in this parliament is a complete abrogation of those proper processes and an abuse. I say this— Mr Katter HX4 Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am being misrepresented. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. There are other forms of the House. It is not a point of order at this stage. Mr Katter interjecting— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. He has been in the parliament long enough to understand the processes. The minister has the call. Mr ALBANESE R36 In terms of the proposition before this parliament I say to the member for Kennedy: have a look at what we have done to increase monitoring of REEFVTS and protect the coastal region in North Queensland. When we had shipping reform, we had a committee—the deputy chair is here—that issued a unanimous report in October 2008. In February 2009 I formed an advisory group of industry leaders to help us work out how to implement that report. I followed this up during the 2010 election campaign with shipping policy commitments. On 1 December 2010 I released a discussion paper that proposed important reforms and invited submissions to be provided by the end of January 2011. As you are all aware, in January last year I established three industry reference groups which consulted and provided advice to the government on tax and regulatory and workforce elements—a proper process. We produced an exposure draft of the bill. We had debate on the bill in this parliament—a proper process that engaged industry and unions in full participation. The joke here is that the members of the opposition, who are attempting to take the Independent members moving this motion today for a ride, say it does not matter, because nothing will actually happen when it goes through the Senate. Nothing will happen anyway, so do not worry; we are just in on this because we have had people knock on our doors and say, 'This is an attack on one union by another union,' and that is all we will engage with. So be it, I say, but do not be used by the opposition for what essentially is another element of their consistent anti-union agenda. I say to the members opposite that, if this bill did pass, it would result in Australia introducing outdated and inconsistent standards with global shipping, resulting in Australian shipping contravening international training and certification standards and conventions. The national president of the union that is putting this forward would no longer be eligible and certified and would be knocked out of the industry. I say to them as well that how training in this country is done is not in a way that is put in legislation. If you do training in legislation, when technology changes, you cannot change the training. You cannot adapt. This is an industry where technology changes. You cannot enshrine training in legislation. That is not what happens in industries across the board. It does not happen in electricity. It does not happen in plumbing. It does not happen across the sectors. You cannot do that. This is really an extraordinary proposition. It creates the precedence of setting training standards in legislation outside of the national vocational education and training system—outside of the VET system. This is an attack on that whole system, and that is why this bill needs to have proper further consideration— Mr Katter interjecting— Mr ALBANESE R36 With due respect to the member for Kennedy, he has had no discussion with me on this legislation—none. And he is seconding this resolution. I know a bit about this industry and I have a proud record in this industry. I understand and respect the position of the member for Kennedy, which is why I say to him: do not proceed with this. Have a sit-down with me and some of the experts— (Time expired) 15:36 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to oppose this motion to suspend standing orders. I had wished to talk on the Maritime Engineers Qualification Bill 2013. With respect to the member for Denison and the member for Kennedy, both of whom I have great respect for— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Perrett HVP And obviously I am married to a North Queenslander. Most of my spare time is spent up in North Queensland. I have a great attachment to the reef and understand the importance of it, which is why I oppose this suspension of standing orders. If the member for Denison gets his way with this piece of legislation, I believe it would be a complete misunderstanding—by the member for Kennedy in particular—of what takes place in the maritime industry. It is an old-school approach—the old 'time-served' approach—to the competency-based approach of education. The world has moved on from the old days of being an indentured apprentice or the like. Now, we have the VET system— The member for Kennedy interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP That is a debate for another day. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Moreton will ignore interjections. Mr PERRETT HVP It is always so lively with the member for Kennedy here. The reality is that this piece of legislation would undermine our maritime industry and, as the Speaker of the House said, it would mean that our maritime industry would not meet the international standards. Under Labor, we have done a lot with AMSA to make sure that we have much safer pieces of legislation to ensure that the coral reef is protected. As the member for interjections would know, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority ensures, under Labor, that it is— The SPEAKER 83S The member for Moreton will resume his seat. The member for Dawson on a point of order. Mr Christensen 230485 The member certainly is not talking about the suspension. He is debating the actual bill and he should talk to the suspension. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Dawson will resume his seat. The member for Moreton will refer to the motion before the chair. Mr PERRETT HVP As I said in my introductory comments, the reason this suspension should not be supported is that the member for Denison is talking about introducing legislation on which there has not been consultation with the opposition. As any member representing an electorate abutting the Great Barrier Reef would know, we should be doing all that we can to protect the Great Barrier Reef. I know that the Liberal and National party members from Queensland have a slightly different approach. I remember the day after the state election when the Deputy Premier said, 'We should make the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park smaller.' That was not mentioned before the election, but, the day after, Jeff Seeney said that on the record, and there was not a peep out of those opposite. I know how important it is that we protect our Great Barrier Reef, and this legislation put forward by the member for Denison makes incorrect assumptions about training. This 'time-served' approach was for a different time—back in the 1200s—and it has served its purpose. But we are now in the middle of the digital age—the technological age—when information is more than doubling every six months. It took thousands of years for information to double in the world, but now it is doubling every six months or less. So, as technology changes, we need to make sure that our sailors, our merchant seamen and women are competent in what they need to do. The member for Denison is a proud Tasmanian. I have been to his electorate and I have seen a lot of the memorabilia on the docks of Hobart and it is of a different time. Now there are not a lot of telescopes and sundials; there is a completely different approach to maritime navigation—it is the digital world. The GPS means that we can track vessels completely differently. So we no longer need to have a 'time-served' approach for the standards of our sailors. It is completely different, and such a proposal would be completely contrary to all modern training practices. That is the reality. If you had a look at a modern ship—I have just been involved with an inquiry that looked at this in the cruising industry—you would see the modern changes. (Time expired) 15:41 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser There is one simple reason why standing orders should not be suspended in this instance, and that is that this is the time to debate the matter of public importance. The matter of public importance today is moved by the member for Cook. The member for Cook is frequently heard in this chamber, often at loud volumes, speaking about the importance of debating asylum seekers. That is an important debate to be had here. I would be very happy to engage in that debate to speak about why it is that the opposition are not willing to back the recommendations of the Houston panel. Why the opposition, on the issue of asylum seekers, choose cheap political slogans rather than the advice of experts like Angus Houston, Michael L'Estrange and Paris Aristotle. Why the opposition would rather send boats back to Indonesia, a country that says no, than strike a deal with Malaysia, a country that says yes. That, Deputy Speaker, as I understand it, is the matter of public importance that you yourself have chosen to be the most important debate to be had before this House. But the opposition have now suggested that we should stop that entirely to instead bring on debate and bring back to this place discussion over maritime laws—discussion that is still being debated in the Federation Chamber. (Time expired) Mr Wilkie C2T I seek leave to clarify that the Selection Committee on 5 June in its report listed this for decision today. The SPEAKER 83S The member for Denison will resume his seat. If I got that wrong, my apologies. I am just feeling a little tender around people playing loose with the truth with the selection committee at this point in time, so if I got that wrong, my apologies. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:47]
(The Speaker—Ms Anna Burke)

 72 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Bandt, AP Billson, BF Bishop, BK Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coulton, M (teller) Crook, AJ Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gash, J Griggs, NL Haase, BW Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Hockey, JB Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF Morrison, SJ Moylan, JE Neville, PC O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Prentice, J Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Secker, PD (teller) Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Somlyay, AM Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Tehan, DT Thomson, CR Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Washer, MJ Wilkie, AD Wyatt, KG 68 NOES Adams, DGH Albanese, AN Bird, SL Bowen, CE Bradbury, DJ Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Cheeseman, DL Combet, GI Crean, SF Danby, M D'Ath, YM Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Emerson, CA Ferguson, LDT Ferguson, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Garrett, PR Georganas, S Gibbons, SW Gray, G Grierson, SJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jenkins, HA Jones, SP Kelly, MJ King, CF Leigh, AK Livermore, KF Lyons, GR Macklin, JL Marles, RD McClelland, RB Melham, D Mitchell, RG (teller) Murphy, JP Neumann, SK Oakeshott, RJM O'Connor, BPJ O'Neill, DM Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Roxon, NL Rudd, KM Saffin, JA Shorten, WR Sidebottom, PS Smith, SF Smyth, L Swan, WM Symon, MS Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Windsor, AHC Zappia, A 4 PAIRS Abbott, AJ Gillard, JE Forrest, JA Collins, JM Mirabella, S Clare, JD Schultz, AJ Snowdon, W

The requirements for an absolute majority not having been satisfied, the motion was not carried.

 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 6537 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Asylum Seekers 6537 15:53 The SPEAKER 83S I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cook proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The impact of the Government's five years of border protection policy failure. 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— 15:53 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Today is World Refugee Day and I think it is important that in this place today we acknowledge that. There are 10½ million people classified by the UNHCR as refugees—men, women, children, mums, dads, sisters, brothers, grandparents; 10½ million people under the mandate of the UNHCR under the refugee convention. These are 10½ million people whose lives have been uprooted by violence, by hate and by persecution. There were 12½ million such people 10 years ago when the Howard government was dealing with the issues on our borders to the north. In the most recent report that has been provided by the UNHCR, it is disturbing to note that the most significant increase in that figure to 10.5 million people, in terms of refugees defined by the UNHCR, is the increase out of Syria. I am sure all members of this House would agree about the seriousness of that situation and would be grieved at the situation in Syria and the increase in the numbers of people now being defined as refugees coming out of Syria. There were 19,900 in the previous report, and in this report there are 728,218. These are deeply disturbing numbers. These are numbers that have not played into the things we are seeing to our north, but they are part of the global issue that relates to the matters of world refugees. We have had many debates in this place on this issue, but there is one thing I am sure is true: whatever position you take on how the matters of our border protection should be addressed, I am quite confident that, in this place at least, members of this House come to the issue with a concern for people. On World Refugee Day, we need to acknowledge that. We may differ, and we do differ—we differ significantly on how this matter should be addressed in terms of our border protection but, putting that matter in its context, the broader global issue is one that I think we all understand and on this day I think that it is important we note it. Important in the debate that follows on from that, when it comes to refugees, is the debate about asylum seekers who are seeking to come to Australia. The sad truth about the 10½ million people—or 10.4 million in the previous report—that are defined as refugees is that 99 per cent of those around the world will never see a resettlement outcome. One of the things that need to inform this debate is the notion of resettlement in Australia. No matter how many numbers of places there are in Australia, less than one per cent of people are going to be resettled around the world. Resettlement is not the global answer, and anyone who suggests so has very little knowledge of this topic. It does not matter what, frankly, the intake is from Australia: unless it is 10.5 million together with our other major partners who undertake resettlement around the world we are going to fall well short. The answer to the global refugee problem is over there, but the answer to the issues we are having on our borders is over here. That is the difference in this debate. We can stand as members of this place and we can acknowledge the global humanitarian stain of the issue of refugees, and it has been with us for all time, sadly. We can stand proudly in this place and acknowledge that 700,000 refugees have been resettled in Australia since the Second World War. That is something that we can all commend. We can commend those people who work in our community in the settlement services program, which enjoys bipartisan support in this place. We can commend the work they do trying to resettle legitimate refugees into our community, and helping them on the pathway to a sustainable life here in Australia—a happy life, a safe life, a peaceful life, a prosperous life. That is the thing that Australians should commend themselves on today, because we are a generous nation. But we are not mugs. It is World Refugee Day today but, sadly, every day under this government is People Smugglers' Day. On the issue of border protection—and that is why I have sought to distinguish these issues very clearly—this is a government that has failed us like none other. I am proud, like other members who sit on this side of the House, and as a member of the Liberal Party in particular, to be part of a party that in 1951 signed the refugee convention under Prime Minister Robert Menzies. There were 1.5 million refugees at that time. There are 10.5 million today. A lot has changed since then and, frankly, a lot has changed as to how the refugee convention is now contorted and interpreted and used—whether it is by advocates or by the smugglers themselves—and how it is interpreted in the courts, which I think goes well beyond the original intention of that document which was signed by the Menzies government. That is a debate that I am sure will continue. That is a debate the coalition participated in and one we have expressed great reservations over. Significantly, the issue we face in this country is people who move beyond their country of first asylum, their secondary movement from one place into our region and then on to Australia. The Indochinese refugee crisis was a very different situation, which the father of the House will remember well—he was in this place when the matter was addressed, as part of the Fraser government. It was a genuine regional problem generated from within our region with people directly fleeing from within our region. The Fraser government responded and should be commended for doing that. I am sure that an Abbott government would respond in the same way if we were faced with a similar regional crisis. But we are not faced with a regional crisis; we are faced with a people-smuggling crisis and that is something this government has failed to understand from the outset. Of course, it was the Howard government that stopped the boats and stopped the business of the people smugglers. I say in response to the Prime Minister, if she wants three words about the Howard government's plan, it is this: it did work. They are the three words she should understand about the stop-the-boats policies of the Howard government: they did work, whether it was turning back the boats where it was safe to do so, whether it was temporary protection visas, whether it was the offshore processing or whether it was establishing the Bali process. The Bali process was focused under the Howard government as a regional deterrence framework, not a regional accommodation framework, which is what we get from the government today. The government has taken that Bali process off course, turning to regional processing hubs and magnets to draw even more people into the region. The coalition have a very different view—that is, deterrence. We believe deterrence works because it did and it will again, and that is the nature of our policy. The record of this government is that it has taken a different approach. The first immigration minister this government had described as his proudest day the abolition of the Pacific solution, the abolition of temporary protection visas and the turning back of the promise of the then opposition leader, Mr Rudd, who became the Prime Minister. Mr Rudd promised before the 2007 election he would turn boats back and then recanted on that when he came to office and abolished those policies. In 2007-08 there were 25 people who turned up on three boats, an average of two per month. In November 2007 there were just four people in detention who had arrived by boat. The budget for managing illegal arrivals by boat was $85 million and 4,706 people received offshore humanitarian visas. After applying offshore, they were granted the visas and, combined with the refugee program, the offshore component of our refugee humanitarian program was over 75 per cent of the total intake. What do we see today? We see 24,824 people have arrived this financial year illegally by boat. We are now at a rate up from two per month to more than 3,000 per month. More than 23,000 people are now in the system. And I expect there are many more since that figure was advised in Senate estimates, who are in the system today and who arrived illegally by boat, up from four when this government started. The budget is up from $85 million to $2.9 billion next year, as we learned today. That is based on an average monthly arrival of 1,000. Today we are operating at an average monthly arrival of over 3,000. So in 10 days time a miracle is going to occur. The number of illegal arrivals to Australia by boat is going to fall by two-thirds in 10 days. That question was put to the Treasurer today. He said he stood by that forecast. It is absurd. That level of delusion and denial by the government on this issue is their greatest area of failure. They simply do not get it. They simply do not believe in the responses that are necessary to address it. It is a failure of resolve. It is a failure of belief in the policies that worked. That is why they abolished them and that is why they will not return them. Sadly, there is the reduction in those who are receiving offshore humanitarian visas under this government. It fell from over 4,700 in 2007-08 to 714 last year, in 2011-12. Less than half for the first time in our refugee and humanitarian program; the offshore humanitarian program established by the Fraser government, and for the first time less than half those have come from applications offshore. That is a great shame and I think that is a great indictment of the performance of this government. The minister will tell you that he has increased the intake to 20,000, and so there will be more. But what he neglects to tell people is that the 20,000 figure that the minister is using includes all the visas he would hand out to people who arrive illegally by boat. Now, 25,000 are likely to turn up this financial year, so he is already on a 5,000 deficit for a start. Where that leaves all of those 40,000-odd who are applying around the world for these places in the orderly process I do not know. But the difference with the coalition policy is this: of the 13,750 visas that we have committed to, not one of those will go to someone who arrives illegally by boat. Not one! Temporary protection visas are not part of that quota. We will not be dipping into the quota for people who are applying offshore, which will include those coming from Syria. It will include those who are still in Iraq, it will include those in Afghanistan, it will include those in Malaysia and it will even include those in Indonesia and in the Thai camps, where many of our members have visited—the member for Brisbane has visited those camps. We will not be dipping into their visas to deal with Labor's mess that they have left on our borders, if we are elected later this year. But this government will. They will continue to take those visas any which way they can. We know the failures; we know that more than a thousand people are dead. We know there are more people arriving by boats claiming asylum than arrive by plane claiming asylum—that was achieved last year for the first time ever. We know of the asylum freeze under Prime Minister Rudd that laid the platform for the riots that occurred. We know that despite the promises of the then minister that he would come down tough, that just one person, I think, ultimately had their visas rejected. We know about the East Timor farce. We know about the solution that was heralded before the last election—the last time the Prime Minister got agitated about this issue. She goes out there and makes commitments before the election, and we see her doing the same thing today. We know about the Malaysian people flop, and we know about it because this minister and this government know that they have no policy on the Malaysian people flop. He could tell me, if he can, in his response where the Malaysian government's agreement is to the recommendation from the Houston panel to include the protections they said were necessary to proceed with the agreement. The minister opposite knows this; there is no such agreement. They do not agree to it. I know they do not agree to it because his predecessor told me. His predecessor informed me and the shadow foreign affairs minister that they would not agree to legally-binding protections for people sent to Malaysia. So the Malaysian people swap is a mirage—it does not exist! They have nothing to put on the table when it comes to that issue, other than to wave it around as an excuse to do absolutely nothing. Nothing! Absolutely nothing! We have the Captain Emad farce—and I could not go through this MPI, of course, without mentioning Captain Emad. An opposition member: And his family. Mr MORRISON E3L He sailed in and he flew out, and the government was none the wiser either way. But his family remains in public housing here in the ACT. There is the community-dumping policy. But Mr Deputy Speaker, know this: the coalition has the resolve and the coalition has the policies, and it will get done. We cannot afford another three years of the failures under this government; the cost, the chaos and the tragedy that has followed from their decisions. They can go and look their electors in the eye and explain to them the cost, the chaos and the tragedy. After six years, the Australian people have had enough; they want a change and they know that the coalition can deliver that change on 14 September. 16:09 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to respond to the member for Cook. Firstly, I would like also to reflect on Refugee Day today. I think it is important that the parliament recognise a very important day for refugees around the world. In fact, on Saturday I was at an event recognising our 800,000th refugee—just in excess of what was referred to by the member for Cook—arriving and being settled in Australia since World War II. It is a remarkable figure. Eight hundred thousand of eight million people that have come to this country—so approximately 10 per cent of the intake of people we have had—are refugees who have built this country, who have made this place their home, who have made this country better and bigger than it was and who have contributed in a way of which we can all be proud. We have a great record in responding to people who are in danger, providing a haven for people who might be fleeing persecution, and that record should not be denied. I agree with the member for Cook insofar as us recognising that. I also think it is important to talk about the level of displacement. The member for Cook talks about a figure in excess of 10 million. In fact, beyond even the determined or approximated number for refugees, there are—according to the UNHCR—45.2 million around the world in situations of displacement, meaning that more people are refugees or internally displaced than at any point since 1994. In this place yesterday, I believe—certainly in this week—the member for McMillan went to the comments in The Guardianfrom the UK from authors Oliver Laughland and Nick Evershed. They go to the issues of numbers. They talk about the fact that there were 1.1 million new refugees around the world in 2012, the highest rise in new refugee numbers since 1999. They also show that the annual UNHCR global trends in displacement report highlights that last year 7.6 million people were newly displaced due to conflict or persecution. On an average day in 2012—so in one average day last year—23,000 people were forced to flee their homes around the world, which is more than the total number of people claiming asylum in Australia for the entire year. So around the world there were 23,000 people displaced, which is higher than those that are looking to claim asylum in an entire year in Australia. That is a remarkable, and quite frightening, number of people in such an awful situation. The statistics also reveal that Australia had 0.3 per cent of the world's refugees at the end of 2012, or just over 30,000. Pakistan had the highest number of refugees, with 1,638,456—which is nearly 17 per cent of the world's total—and Australia had 2.14 per cent of the world's asylum seekers at the end of 2012, with just over 20,000. South Africa, for example, had the highest number, with 230,442, constituting 24.6 per cent of the total number of asylum seekers globally. In the case of comparing us with South Africa, you can see the challenges they have in dealing with more than tenfold the number that we have to deal with. I think that sometimes gets lost in this debate. This is a global problem, this is an international challenge, and, so far as our own region goes, it is a regional challenge requiring a regional response. It is important, therefore, that if we are to do this successfully and see a reduction or cessation in vessels arriving in such a manner, if we are going to see fewer people endangering their lives, then we do need to have the compact with the region. We do need, through the Bali process, to find ways to do that. That is not an easy thing to do—no one is suggesting that from this side of the House. There has been a view that if we coin a slogan we can realise a solution, but I think that it is just disingenuous and dishonest to suggest that. That is what the opposition have done for over three years—coin a slogan and suggest that somehow they have got a fi The interesting thing is that nobody agrees with them. The experts do not agree with them. The agencies of government that advised the Howard government do not agree with them. No eminent person or person with experience in border protection, refugee settlement or diplomatic matters has come out and agreed with the opposition leader, because it is a fraud. The 'turn back the boats' policy is an element of the 'stop the boats' fraud. Their 'turn back the boats' policy does not exist except in the minds of those opposite. The opposition leader pretends that he has a 'turn back the boats' policy. What does he have? The former immigration minister is here in the House. I know he sits through every debate, living through some glory days. The fact is that he knows that, without the agreement of Indonesia, it cannot work. He knows that and he also knows that the discussions that have occurred between the opposition and the Indonesian government have not gone to the issues of turning back the boats, because they will not raise it, because they know the President will say no. We have had the Vice President of Indonesia say, 'We're not going to support the "turn back the boats" policy.' We have had the ambassador for Indonesia say, 'We won't be supporting the "turn back the boats" policy.' We have had the foreign minister of Indonesia say, 'We won't support the "turn back the boats" policy.' We have had a former admiral of the Navy say that, if we were to embark on this mission, we would be endangering the lives of naval personnel. We know the dangers that are likely to occur if we are to turn people back on the high seas in the manner in which the opposition are suggesting. During the last election, we saw the opposition leader say he would have a 'boat' phone sitting on his desk so he can pick up the phone and call the master of the vessel and tell them to the turn back that boat. What a brave opposition leader that would be, sitting behind a desk on a 'boat' phone and telling people who are the ones who have to deal with these matters how to conduct an operation. Judi Moylan, I think, gave an honourable speech in her valedictory this week and I was witness to her contribution. She has been a fine member of parliament. She quite rightly pointed to the fact that that policy will endanger the lives of men, women and children. She made it very, very clear that to suggest that we return vessels in that manner is unconscionable. It is dangerous not only to those on the vessel, because of the likelihood of sabotage, but also for our own naval and Customs personnel. We saw that with SIEV36, where there was an effort to sabotage that vessel. Five people died in April 2009 and others could have died too, including our own personnel. Of course, it is foolish for the opposition to suggest otherwise. We have also seen a change insofar as the opposition suggesting it can stop the boats. I refer to an interview given by the member for Cook on 13 March 2013. In this interview there were two interviewers but the person asking the questions was Mr Andrew Bolt—who I would not say was an enemy of the opposition but a dear friend of the opposition. On five occasions he asked the member for Cook when we will see the boats stop if they are elected. The member for Cook gave five answers. His first answer was, 'I don't put time frames on this.' That was a good answer. So it is now: 'Stop the boats. I don't put time frames on it.' His second answer was, 'I'm not making such forecasts.' So it is now: 'Stop the boats. I'm not making such forecasts.' His third answer was, 'We'd like to see it happen as soon as possible.' So, it is now, 'Stop the boats,' and the subtitle is, 'We'd like to see it happen as soon as possible.' His fourth answer was, 'I'll let you interpret what it means.' So now: 'Stop the boats. But you can interpret what that means.' Andrew Bolt was just trying to get an answer out of the shadow minister and he asked, 'When are you going to stop the boats?' His fifth answer was, 'That's what we're attempting.' We know why the member for Cook went on that show. He thought that Andrew Bolt was going to say: 'How are you going to solve this? You are remarkable people. You're going to fix all these things.' He did not expect to be asked the question, 'How are you going to stop the boats'. He asked him five times. On each occasion he could not answer because he does not know how to stop the boats or when the boats will stop under those policies because not one agency in this country supports the proposition put by the opposition leader that you can turn back the boats. Nobody supports the proposition put by the opposition. It is a slogan. It is unworkable. It is unsafe. It was quite right that Judi Moylan raised concerns about these issues. We can have this banter across the table, but the reality is these are very serious issues. The only way there is going to be a sustainable solution to this issue is by having a compact of countries of origin, transit and destination. The only way that can happen is engaging responsibly, not saying one thing privately to them and coming out and publically verballing people from another country. Not going, as the member for Cook did, to Malaysia, standing up, talking to the media and traducing the reputation of Malaysia while on its own soil; not attacking Malaysia in the way he did. If he thinks he is going to have some relationship—if he is ever appointed a minister; if they are ever elected—with Malaysia, after the effort he put into traducing the reputation of that country, well I can assure the House he is very, very deluded. Malaysia will not forget the way in which he went about attacking the human rights record of that country. The fact is Malaysia put forward an arrangement that should be considered. Malaysia put forward and arrangement that— An opposition member interjecting— Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Look, if we were to agree upon this in the parliament, we would be able to return people to a transit country safely. We would be able to do that without potentially causing the deaths of our own personnel, causing deaths of men, women and children on the high sea. Even if you had any doubt about it at all—even though this has been recommended by the former Chief of the Defence Force Angus Houston, even though it has been recommended by Michael L'Estrange, a former diplomat; even though it has been recommended by Paris Aristotle—even if you had any doubt about the efficacy of transferring people in that manner, the fact that you do not even want to embrace it, the fact that you will not even support it if it came into the parliament, is a real tragedy. They will not support the Malaysia arrangement not because it will not work; they will not support the Malaysian arrangement because they are afraid that it will work. Now why would you not listen to the experts in relation to these matters; why would you not give it a go? Even if there was a skerrick of doubt in relation to the effectiveness of that arrangement, why would you not put that forward? Because you want to see more boats come. You rub your hands together every time a vessel arrives in our waters, an unseaworthy vessel on a perilous journey with people who could—well they are risking their lives at sea. That to me is an unconscionable response to a very important issue that is before this debate. We should be undertaking that arrangement, but we are not doing that. And that is, I think, a shame and it is something the opposition should rethink. We have an opportunity to realise the Malaysian arrangement and give it a go, as advised by the experts. But in the end, this opposition will stand in the way of the government realising that proposition for fear of it working. It is not because they think it will not work but because they are afraid it will. I think that is a dreadful shame because this issue is very serious. It goes to our border protection, yes. It goes to our management. It goes to our immigration reputation. But it also goes to what happens to people on the high seas and what we must do to ensure that the chances of people dying at sea are reduced. This is a global problem. I agree with what the member for Cook said at the commencement of his contribution. This is a global problem and it is a regional problem, but it needs a regional solution. It is not going to work with a slogan and it is not going to work attacking Indonesia or Malaysia. (Time expired) 16:24 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling As we have been sitting here having this debate, the government has put out another announcement: another boat has arrived. It has arrived very close to Darwin, because our Border Protection Command have a very difficult time in intercepting the sheer volume of boats that are arriving under Labor's failed border protection regimes. Those announcements can occur up to five or six times a day at the moment. People smugglers have ramped up their activity to a level we have never before seen in our history. We are all politicians in this place. We all follow politics closely and we all know what is going on in the government at the moment. Basically, we have got a group of warring tribes who occupy the Treasury benches and they are totally consumed by their own internal politics. I went to the Midwinter Ball last night. I enjoyed it very much and I congratulate those who organised it in aid of the charities that they supported. And I kid you not, I was speaking to one person who swore to me black and blue that we would have a change of Prime Minister on Monday—it was definitely going to happen on Monday. I spoke to another person who said, 'No, no, it won't be Monday. It will be Tuesday.' Finally, a third party said to me, 'No, no, no, that is not going to happen. It will happen on Thursday. We will have a new Prime Minister on Thursday.' That means that the Prime Minister might be safe if she comes to work on Wednesday, but of course I did not actually talk to that many people so it is quite possible that people are saying that she could go that day as well. The point that I am making is that regardless of what happens next week, regardless of who emerges as Prime Minister, whether we have the member for Lalor or whether we have the member for Griffith, nothing will actually change. That is why the Australian people are so over this. That is why it really makes no difference who emerges as Prime Minister. Under Prime Minister Rudd we had 139 illegal boats arrive. That was considered so serious by the current Prime Minister that she said it was one of the reasons she needed to take over from the member for Griffith as Prime Minister. Then subsequently her record—after saying that Kevin Rudd's record was so bad with 139 boats—is that 590 illegal boats have arrived under her watch. It is a rate of illegal boat arrivals that we have never before seen in our history. It is hard to know who is going to be worse for protecting our borders: the Prime Minister who introduced the measures that led to this very sorry state of affairs, or the Prime Minister who said she was going to do something about it and has made things so much worse. All the Australian people can take from this is that nobody on the government benches has any idea about what to do apart from continuing their policy of abject surrender to the people smugglers. That is all we have from the Labor Party—abject surrender to the people smugglers. The government's policy is now just to shrug their shoulders and say, 'Oh well, it has got nothing much to do with us. We are only the government.' The worst thing about this is that it would not be occurring if the Labor Party had come into office and just left well enough alone. They inherited a border protection policy that worked, one that meant that boats were not arriving, one that meant that people smugglers were not active and that people were not coming here in leaky boats on the high seas. They took that solution and created a problem. In a fit of moral vanity they abolished those proven measures that actually worked, reinvigorated the people-smuggling trade and, since then, we have had this record number of illegal boat arrivals—almost 45,000 people on 729. But in fact it is 730, because we have just had another arrival announced. What we are seeing from the Labor Party at the moment is less of a government and more of a circus. It is far more of a circus. I am surprised that cabinet ministers do not walk in here with a red noses and large multicoloured wigs. I am surprised that they do not arrive in a cabinet meeting in a very small car. The point is that nobody on the government benches has any idea about what to do with the challenges that are facing this country. Whether it be the current Prime Minister or whether it be the member for Griffith, the people smugglers know that they are the ones who are going to remain in charge. Nothing is going to change. We could have the former Prime Minister who broke it, or we could have the current Prime Minister who has made it so much worse. No matter what the Labor Party does, we are not going to get a resolution to this very serious problem. What we need to do of course is ensure that we return to a suite of policies that we know works. How do we know that they work? We know that they work because they have achieved the goal that we need them to achieve—that is, when we implemented them in the past they smashed people smuggling: temporary protection visas, turning the boats back when it is safe to do so and a genuine approach to offshore processing that means that people do not actually set foot on mainland Australia. What we have at the moment is a circus running this country and it is time we brought the curtain down. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 6546 ADJOURNMENT Petition: Abbot Point 6546 16:30 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Australia may have once ridden on the sheep's back, but our wealth and lifestyle are now delivered in the back of a dump truck, through hard work and investment in the resource sector. We are a lucky country and a wealthy country, but we did not get here by making soybean sandwiches. We got here by playing to our strengths and using the resources that we have. In the North Queensland town of Bowen, families are doing it tough through lack of industry, lack of jobs and lack of opportunities. The one light at the end of the tunnel has been the proposed expansion of the nearby Abbot Point coal terminal. That proposal now depends on a decision from the environment minister, a decision being hijacked by the extreme greens who aim to close not just the ports but all mining in this country. I have always been a strong supporter of this development because it is vital for the Australian economy and desperately important for the people of Bowen in North Queensland, but my initial preference was that the dredged material was to be disposed of on land. This preference was supported through consultation with the fishing and diving industries. However, it has been found out that if the developers are forced to dispose of the dredged material on land the project would be killed off, which would make the extreme greens very happy. The extreme greens, in their attempt to close down the port and mining altogether, have used local fishermen as pawns in their political game, but the plan backfired. Through further consultation with the fishing industry, the diving industry and the developers, an agreeable alternative marine proposal has been identified. So the greens have now switched their attack by calling in overseas reinforcements who share their goal of shutting down Australian resource exports. They now employ the UNESCO World Heritage Committee's threat of listing the Great Barrier Reef as 'in danger' to further their cause. Who is this unelected body anyway? There are 21 states who are parties to the current World Heritage Committee, and Australia is not one of them. However, our major resource export competitors are very well represented on that committee: Algeria, the world's 10th largest producer of natural gas; Colombia, the fourth largest exporter of coal in the world; the Russian Federation, the world's largest holder of natural gas; South Africa, the holder of 95 per cent of Africa's coal reserves and fifth largest coal exporter in the world; the United Arab Emirates, exporter of natural gas to Asia; Qatar, the world's largest producer of liquid natural gas; Malaysia, an exporter of natural gas and LNG; and India and Iraq, both with reserves of natural gas. It is hard to imagine there not being a conflict of interest when a committee of those countries is helping to shut down Australian resource exports. Another member of the committee is Senegal, which has no coral reefs at all, and other members—Mexico, Thailand, Cambodia, South Africa, Colombia and the United Arab Emirates—have all badly abused reefs of their own. None of the committee members have any real expertise about reefs but are happy to use our reef, the Great Barrier Reef, as a reason to shut down our coal industry. In fact, member nations passing judgement on our reef, including Colombia, Ethiopian, Iraq, Mali, Senegal and Serbia, all have sites already on an 'in danger' list. Indeed, some of them have more than one site on the list—and they sit in judgement of Australia. In employing the World Heritage Committee to wield a hypocritical political weapon, the extreme greens have committed nothing short of economic treason. The real agenda of the extremists is not any concern for the environment; they merely use the environment as a reason to shut down industry, to destroy jobs, to prevent wealth creation and to dismantle democracy. Dave Nebauer, a member of the Bowen Collinsville Enterprise Group, wrote to me yesterday very concerned about the radical campaign that the extreme Greens are waging against the resource sector. He said: The environmental groups involved are not interested in ensuring acceptable environmental outcomes are achieved as the industry develops. They have a specific goal of shutting down our industry in total. More alarmingly, he points to where this campaign may lead next. He says: Once the green groups have shut down mining they will come after the next industry (Sugar? Horticulture? Fishing again?). As a community, we need to ensure that a balanced view is maintained and that our economic future is not hijacked by radical groups who are not about sustainable development … rather they are anti-development. Mr Nebauer is one of the many North Queenslanders who can see through the green smokescreen and see the extreme agenda that the greens have for what it is. I implore the federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to actually do the same and approve the Abbot Point expansion for the sake of the township of Bowen, for the sake of our resources sector and for the sake of the Australian economy. I have here a document which is a petition, but it is not a petition in accordance with the rules, so I seek leave to table the document of 1,550 signatures in support of the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion and also note that there are many more coming into my office. Leave not granted. Deakin Electorate: Aquanation 6547 16:35 Mr SYMON HW8 Deakin On Friday, 7 June, it was my truly great pleasure to accompany the Minister for Regional Services, Local Communities and Territories, the Hon. Catherine King, to the Ringwood multipurpose pavilion in my electorate of Deakin. The minister was visiting to announce funding for the Ringwood aquatic and leisure centre known as Aquanation, which is to be built on the site of the former Ringwood Aquatic Centre, just next door. Maroondah City Council are to receive $10 million, from round 4 of the Regional Development Australia Fund, towards the cost of the $48 million project. We had many people attend the funding announcement, including Maroondah Mayor Nora Lamont, Councillors Tony Dibb and Natalie Thomas, council CEO Frank Dixon and a host of senior council officers who have been involved in the project and will be for quite some time to come. Aquanation now has funding committed from all three levels of government, as the state government has provided $3 million towards the project. I am really pleased to say there has been a bit of a local pick-up as some local sponsors have got on board along with the funding from the council, the state government and the federal government. Those sponsors are: the Ringwood East and Heathmont Community Bank, which is the Bendigo Bank, who have put $200,000 towards the project; ConnectEast, the owner of East Link, who have put in $20,000; Diving Australia and Diving Victoria have put in a combined $150,000; the Ringwood Diving Club have put in $100,000; and Swimming Victoria and the Ringwood Swimming Club have put in $50,000. That is a really good list to have when it comes to ownership of what will be a wonderful community asset to be used for decades to come. Very importantly, the centre will incorporate the new Victorian State Diving Centre, the first in Victoria, in a complex that has other swimming pools, a gymnasium, a childcare facility and so much more than what used to be on the site. The former Ringwood aquatic centre was originally built in 1970 and was converted from an outdoor to an indoor pool in the mid-1980s. For any members or people listening to this broadcast, most councils have old infrastructure, especially pools. Once they get to a certain age, they seem to get a whole host of problems and they can become in some cases a bit of a money pit. That is certainly what was happening with the old Ringwood aquatic centre. While attendances were dropping, maintenance costs were going up and up. The thought of capital replacement of part of the pool was debated for quite a long time but in the end the council made what would prove to be the correct decision in the long term: to close the pool and to redevelop the entire complex. That was not without controversy. Since 2010, this has been an ongoing issue in the eastern half of the electorate of Deakin, especially because, with the closure of the old Ringwood aquatic centre, there was only one indoor pool left in Maroondah, a 25 metre pool at Croydon. Although it is new and incredibly popular, there is not enough space there. The main user groups at Ringwood were the swimming and diving clubs. Without the Ringwood facilities, they were pretty much without a local home. The diving club especially had to spend a lot of time travelling to and from Albert Park and the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre, where the only other true diving facilities exist in Victoria at the moment. With the new facility, they are going to have a new home with some fantastic features in it that take it far beyond what was ever on the site before. There will now be a 66½ metre 10-lane FINA standard pool, with booms separating water spaces for lap swimming, diving, water polo, synchronised swimming and underwater hockey. There will be a FINA standard diving facility 10 metre diving tower with a dive recovery and plunge pool. There will be a 360 square metre diving training room, which is a first in Victoria. There will also be facilities for Diving Victoria. There is also at the centre a 224 square metre warm water program pool for rehabilitation and therapy that in many ways replaces the pool that was at the old Ringwood aquatic centre. There is also a smaller 120 square metre dedicated learn to swim pool and a 400 square metre leisure and toddler pool with beach entry and splash play, which is the thing that the kids really like about the Croydon centre as well, so I can see that being popular at Ringwood. There are also wet and dry saunas and a spa and there are dry leisure facilities. There is a gym that has 1,000 square metres of space, three group fitness rooms, childcare facilities, a family change village with nine accessible change facilities, change rooms for school pupils, seating for 800 spectators and car parking for 312 cars, buses and other vehicles. As a new facility, it is environmentally sustainable and will include cogeneration features as well. Hughes Electorate: The Mandaean Community 6549 16:40 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I wish to inform the House of the growing and important contribution that the Mandaean community is making to Australia, especially in south-west Sydney. The Mandaeans are followers of John the Baptist and they are pacifists. They have a number of holy books, the most important of which is the Ginza. The Mandaean ancestors fled from the Jordan valley about 2,000 years ago and ultimately came to settle along the lower reaches of the Tigris, Euphrates and Karun rivers in what is now Iraq and Iran. The Mandaean community has been one of the oldest and smallest minority groups in Iraq for centuries. Migration of that community began during Saddam Hussein's rule. In fact, in 2003 at the start of the Gulf War there were only an estimated 60,000 Mandaean in Iraq. But the migration of that group from Iraq accelerated greatly after the 2003 Gulf War and the subsequent occupation. As the security situation deteriorated in that country, more and more Mandaeans emigrated. The reasons were that many of the Mandaean community who had their trade as goldsmiths and followed a pacifistic religion that forbade them from carrying arms were targeted by criminal gangs and held up for ransoms. Further, they suffered at the hand of Islamic extremism. Thousands were forced to flee the country after they were given the choice of conversion or death. In fact, today it is estimated that around 90 per cent of the Mandaeans who were in Iraq in 2003 have either been killed or forced to flee the country, leaving a tiny community of just 5,000 left in Iraq. Today, the Mandaeans as a people and their 2,000-year-old culture are in grave danger of disappearing from the face of the earth. However, a small but significant number of Mandaeans have migrated to Sweden and Australia—maybe just enough to save them and their ancient culture from destruction. In fact, today there are an estimated 5,000 Mandaeans living in Liverpool and a further 3,000 in Fairfield. Many of them migrated to Australia as refugees under the watch of the honourable member for Berowra, the father of the House and the former immigration minister under the Howard government. This community is truly helping to revitalise the Liverpool economy and the Liverpool CBD. Liverpool is the fourth oldest city in Australia, after Sydney, Parramatta and Hobart. But it is a city that has been neglected for decades under Labor control. Now, under the newly elected Liberal Liverpool Council and Liberal Liverpool Mayor Ned Mannoun we are starting to see development happening and some green shoots in that economy. In fact, the Mandaean community are responsible for converting the old ramshackle Liverpool fire station in Terminus Street, a building that had been abandoned for many years and that was being used as a decrepit drug den, into a place of peace and learning. They did so with construction over a year, with 100 members of the local community using their own hands to rebuild it. It is a great asset for the local community. I am very proud that they welcomed the member for Cook there last week. The other major contribution that the Mandaean community are making to Liverpool is through expertise in the gold and jewellery industries. In fact, the Liverpool CBD has the potential to become—and is starting to become—the jewellery capital of not only Australia but the entire Southern Hemisphere. We should be looking to model the Liverpool CBD on the diamond district of New York. In fact, there are parallels. The New York diamond district grew in importance after many Orthodox Jews fled from both the Netherlands and Belgium following Nazi Germany's occupation. They built up the diamond district in New York. So here we have a similar situation, where the Mandaeans were forced to flee Iraq from Saddam's tyranny and Islamic extremism. Hopefully, we can build up Liverpool to be the gold and jewellery capital of Australia. Also in the Liverpool CBD we have many of the Indian community building businesses. Liverpool CBD is a place that has a great future as a business district for the small businesses of many people from our refugee and immigrant communities. (Time expired) La Trobe Electorate: Mental Health Services 6550 16:45 Ms SMYTH 172770 La Trobe Members will be well aware of the extent of this government's financial support for mental health services since coming to office. Those initiatives have extended to services for people experiencing mental illness, for families and carers, online mental health services and services accessible by phone. A record $2.2 billion over five years has been invested to support those services. One of those initiatives is the very well-regarded and successful development of headspace centres around the country. I have updated the House previously on the opening of a new facility to support the needs of the Greater Dandenong, Casey and Cardinia regions. I know that currently, with around 55 centres, headspace as an organisation have helped close to 100,000 young people in total. I understand that by 2015 they anticipate that they will have around 90 centres servicing the needs of up to 72,000 young people each year, which is an extraordinary number. A further initiative facilitated by funding from the federal government is headspace School Support. It provides support to secondary schools which have been affected by a suicide. It is designed to serve the particular needs of schools in question, and through feedback that has been provided to me at a local level I know that it is very well received at what are extremely difficult times for school communities. I speak regularly to young people, to schoolteachers and to principals, along with other members of my community, about their concerns in relation to mental health needs. The expansion of housing in our region and the attractiveness of the area to new and young families buying their first homes mean that the Casey and Cardinia regions in particular are experiencing substantial growth. In any new region, establishing community supports and community infrastructure takes time. When mental health concerns emerge, families that have moved to a new region may struggle to seek out and find the appropriate support. I should particularly note in making these remarks that the Minister for Mental Health has been very much available to discuss these issues and to hear from members of my local community about their needs in the area of mental health. This is, indeed, sincerely appreciated by me and by them. Services like headspace offer an informal means for young people to seek support either with or independently of their families. This is especially important. What is also important is that young people feel comfortable attending a health service like headspace. Ideally, that means it will be in an area that they are familiar with and which is easily reached. Ideally, this would mean that the service would be readily accessible by public transport and close to other amenities that young people would be likely to visit. For some time now I have taken soundings from my community about the availability of mental health services. In recent weeks that has also involved more detailed discussions with health and mental health professionals, one of our Medicare Locals, school welfare staff and others to understand better their needs. They have certainly welcomed the investments that this government has made, and they have made it clear to me that they feel strongly that the services directed to Casey and Cardinia—those regions of my electorate—would be extremely beneficial to support young people in our growing community. People in my area have really come together over this, and so many young people in my community have taken the initiative to raise awareness of these issues at a very local level and, indeed, at a very young age. The ability of what is still quite a new community to come together around resourcing issues in relation to mental health—issues that are sometimes difficult to tackle and sometimes sensitive for school communities to raise—is really quite extraordinary and impressive in difficult circumstances. This government has been very responsive to the needs of our area, as it has with other growth regions around the country. Meaningful investment in people through social supports, educational supports and certainly health supports really is the trademark of Labor. I have been advocating for some time for the availability of further mental health resources in the regions of Casey and Cardinia in particular, and specifically for young people facing mental health concerns in those regions of my electorate. I will continue to do so, and I know that these issues are certainly taken seriously in this place when they are raised. I am very pleased that there has been the responsiveness by this government to date in relation to what is a very difficult issue. I have confidence that that will continue to be the case. Perth Airport 6551 16:50 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning I wish to raise the issue of the sorry state of Perth airport. It is unfortunate that I am raising this issue again, because in 2009 I spoke of the many problems at Perth airport and, sadly, many of those issues still remain. I have raised some of the issues many times before in this place, so I will not go over all the same details. Recently, we have seen The West Australian reporting on the matter of fog causing delays at Perth airport: Low visibility caused airport chaos overnight diversions and long delays for takeoff for many international flights. …   …   … The Emirates 777 is fitted with full auto land capability but Perth Airport does not have the same capability or the high intensity lighting required. In April we saw the same chaos with delays being caused at both the international and domestic terminals due to these foggy conditions. As reported in The West Australian on 11 June this year, the airport only has a CAT-I instrument landing system, which requires pilots to be able to see 800 metres horizontally and 61 metres vertically. Upgrading to a CAT-IIIB system would allow pilots to land if they could see 50 metres horizontally and 15 metres vertically. But this is only the start of some of the problems. The third, or parallel, runway has been delayed and there is the constant parking of planes on aprons around the airport. In fact the parking facilities around the airport are crowded and diminishing. Many departing and arriving flights do not have flight bridges for passengers to disembark, including those with full service cost flights. Many of the passengers have to walk across the tarmac in all weather conditions for a long distance, as I probably will when I arrive at the airport tonight. The lack of convenient parking is an issue, and passengers are often sitting on floors as they wait to board their flights. The ACCC recently described this as the second-worst airport in Australia. The Emirates A380 cannot land at Perth airport because it does not have the necessary flight bridges. These things combined are holding back tourism, Perth's strong mining economy and the WA economy in general. The relationship between Qantas and Emirates is such that they would love to fly A380s into Perth because we have a burgeoning and growing international sector out of Perth. However, if you have ever embarked on a plane out of Perth, you would know that you have to walk down old steps that were probably there during the days of the America's Cup, when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister, and you would realise that lumping your bags down onto the plane is rather antiquated. Given the fact that the A380 needs two modern flight bridges to disembark a plane, this is not able to be done. I know Qantas is extremely annoyed and, as I said, it is holding back tourism and the whole development of the Western Australian economy in a range of ways. Perth airport's chief executive, Brad Geatches, keeps saying that they have been discussing things with the airlines, particularly the runway and the fog issues. But they are continuing; he just keeps talking about these things and we keep getting press releases. There are probably more spin doctors employed in the Westralia Airports Corporation than there are technocrats. Planning for these new facilities should be the responsibility of the airport, not the airlines. This view is backed by Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, who has stated there is a problem with airport infrastructure in Perth. As I said, Perth airport has recently missed a critical deadline in regard to getting on with the building of the third, or parallel, runway. The state Minister for Transport Troy Buswell said that discussions between Perth airport and airlines should have been completed by April, but Mr Geatches tells us that they are continuing. Many of my constituents are plagued by airport noise due to the increased air traffic and flight path changes. Perth airport has a larger footprint than Sydney airport. For example, Sydney airport is 907 hectares and Perth is 2,100 hectares. There is the capacity. It is hard to fathom what is really holding it back. It really is the parsimonious nature of the Westralian Airports Corporation, who need to revise the master plan and modernise it. I say categorically that, should we be fortunate enough to be the government later this year, I will strongly urge the minister for transport if it is Warren Truss to look at the Western Australian lease arrangements in terms of their compliance. He will need to look, review and modernise these arrangements in view of making a better master plan that serves Western Australian constituents. (Time expired) Petition: Pharmacies 6552 16:55 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I rise to present a petition on behalf of my Leeton shire constituents in the Riverina regarding the pressing need for an additional pharmacy in the town. The principal petitioner is Tracey Rudd from Leeton. The petition I present today, which has been stamped as being in order by the Petitions Committee, notes the need for an additional pharmacy as well as the fact that two existing pharmacies in the community were purchased by the same owners yet continue to trade separately. The petitioners note that the Leeton community is concerned that there is not enough effective competition in the pharmacy market in the town. The petition, therefore, asks the House to call upon the Minister for Health, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, to exercise her ministerial discretion so as to provide an additional section 90 approval number to the town of Leeton so another pharmacy may be opened. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of the Leeton Shire Community draws to the attention of the House that the residents of the Leeton Shire are in need of an additional pharmacy to service their community. Both pharmacies in Leeton were recently purchased by the same owners. Despite the fact that both pharmacies have been kept open and are trading separately, the community of Leeton are concerned that there is not enough effective competition in the pharmacy market in the town of Leeton. We therefore ask the House to call upon the Minister for Health and Ageing to exercise Ministerial Discretion so as to provide an additional Section 90 approval number to the town of Leeton so that another pharmacy may be opened. from 4,858 citizens Petition received. Lyons Electorate: Tasmanian Alkaloids 6553 16:56 Mr ADAMS BV5 Lyons Several weeks ago I was accompanied by the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation, who is at the table, to announce a grant of $1,046,000 from the carbon price revenue for clean technology, which will help a specialist Tasmanian manufacturer reduce the carbon emissions intensity of their operations by 39 per cent and save up to $300,000 in energy costs per year. The company in question is Tasmanian Alkaloids in Westbury, who are proposing to install state-of-the-art evaporation technology to replace an old, less efficient method of concentrating solutions when extracting alkaloids from poppy straw. The total value of the proposal to be part-funded as part of the government's Clean Technology Investment Program is $3.139 million. Tasmanian Alkaloids is Australia's largest manufacturer of active pharmaceutical ingredients derived from opium poppies and the largest global exporter of codeine phosphate and thebaine. Manufacturers can invest in energy efficient capital equipment and low-emissions technology on any scale to make a difference. This project is a great example of how there is now new clean equipment for production. The new process involves a piece of equipment called a centritherm, which is effectively a spinning cone that evaporates up to 90 per cent of the solvent used in extracting alkaloids. The process now will use far less steam while generating the same output and in turn will reduce the site's gas consumption. Tasmanian Alkaloids had already committed to lessen their gas usage and had made a significant financial commitment of their own—over $2 million—to this project. This government program has allowed them to proceed sooner rather than later. They realise the importance of making improvements to manufacturing processes so they can continue to manufacture goods in Australia. The Clean Technology Investment Program and the Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program provide grants for Australian manufacturers to invest in energy efficient capital equipment and low-emissions technologies, products and processes, and are a great incentive for established companies to take on the latest technology. So Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty Ltd was well placed to attract an energy efficiency grant. It is the world's largest producer of narcotic raw materials for the pharmaceutical industry. Exports are primarily to the established market in the US and Europe. Success has been achieved by long-term investment in research and development and reliable poppy production in Tasmania. The most notable innovations are patented mutant poppies producing opium alkaloids, which are only present to a minor extent in conventional poppies. These are thebaine, codeine and oripavine, whereas conventionally morphine is the principal alkaloid. Most of the morphine produced in the world is chemically converted to codeine, so it is beneficial to grow the codeine directly in poppies and save costs, energy and equipment as well as reducing waste. Tasmanian Alkaloids employs 190 people, including 30 in agricultural and chemical R&D. During the harvest period this number grows by about 35 people. (Time expired) House adjourned at 17:02 NOTICES 6554 NOTICES

Thursday, 20 June 2013

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 6555 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Petition: Level Crossings 6555 09:31 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins While historically Melbourne has benefited from thoughtful planning, there remain 172 level crossings within the metropolitan area in comparison to only eight in Sydney. Many of these crossings are positioned on or adjacent to Melbourne's busiest roads and major arterials. The Burke Road intersection and railway crossing is but one significant example in my electorate. Railway crossings cause substantial delays to motorists, road based freight and public transport, while imposing capacity constraints on rail based public transport. Along the Dandenong rail corridor, the hands-down single largest issue facing constituents on a daily basis is the need to remove level crossings and the associated congestion. It influences key decisions—where people will shop, where they will send their children to school and how they will access work. I have heard this directly from constituents through my surveys, through my regular mobile office meetings at train stations and in Koornang Road Carnegie, through the community forum I held at Carnegie Community Centre, through telephone calls to my office and by simply by knocking on doors in the local area to say hello. The traders agree. Both the Murrumbeena Village Traders Association and the Carnegie Traders Association know that the railway crossings hurt business and impact the amenity of the local community. The 2012 RACV Redspot survey ranks three Higgins level crossings in Victoria's top 10 worst congestion sites. They are (1) Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena; (4) Koornang Road, Carnegie; and, (5) Burke Road, Glen Iris. Since 2011 the Victorian government has been unsuccessful in seeking federal government support via Infrastructure Australia and the Nation Building Program for Commonwealth funding to augment the more than $400 million it has already committed to level crossing removals. I congratulate my state colleagues for focusing on this issue. In their three years of government they will have removed five level crossings. In the previous state Labor government, over 11 years, only three level crossings were removed. There is a broad agreement as to the nature of the problem and the need for action. How these projects are funded remains less clear. The magnitude of the costs and potential productivity dividend requires federal intervention. I am pleased to present this petition, with more than 1,151 signatures, which draws to the attention of the House the severe congestion caused by the regular closure of the level crossings along the Dandenong rail line, and I ask the parliament to give greater priority to their removal. I table the petition. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 I understand it the petition has been through the committee and will be processed. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of the residents of Melbourne draws to the attention of the House the severe congestion caused by regular closure of the level crossings along the Dandenong Rail Line. In particular we note: 1. The substantial congestion of pedestrian, car and road freight traffic caused by constant level crossing closures during peak train times. 2. The negative impact for local business and community life as a result of level crossing related traffic congestion. 3. The consequent stifling of economic growth and loss of productivity within the Dandenong Rail Line catchment area, which currently accounts for approximately half of Melbourne's GDP or 9% of national GDP. 4. The failure of the Commonwealth Government to provide any funding, as per the Victorian Government's 2011 Infrastructure Australian Bid, to address level crossings within the 2012 Commonwealth Budget. We therefore ask the House to prioritise the funding for the removal of the level crossings on the Dandenong Rail Lines through road/rail grade separation of level crossings at Koornang Road, Carnegie, Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena and Poath Road, Murrumbeena commencing with the 2013 Commonwealth Budget and subsequently via the next Nation Building Program. from 1,151 citizens Petition received. Charlton Electorate: Education 6556 09:34 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to learn that a few weeks ago I opened the Morisset High School salon. The school has invested its own funds to build a hairdressing salon and to employ a TAFE teacher. By the end of this term students will be on their way to completing a certificate II in hairdressing at the school. It is the only facility of its kind in a public school in the region. Petition: Road Infrastructure 6556 09:31 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins Whilst a struggling Melbourne has benefited from thoughtful planning, there remain 172 level crossings within the metropolitan area, in comparison with only eight in Sydney. Many of these crossings are positioned on, or adjacent to, Melbourne's busiest roads and major arterials. The Burke Road intersection and railway crossing is but one significant example in my electorate. Railway crossings cause substantial delays to motorists, road based freight and public transport, whilst imposing capacity constraints on rail based public transport. Along the Dandenong rail corridor, hands down the single largest issue facing constituents on a daily basis is the need to remove level crossings and the associated congestion. It influences key decisions: where people will shop and send their children to school, and how they will access work. I have heard this directly from my constituents, through my surveys; through my regular mobile office meetings; at train stations, and in Koornang Road, Carnegie; through the community forum I held at Carnegie Community Centre; through telephone calls to my office; and by simply knocking on doors in the local area to say hello. The traders agree. Both the Murrumbeena Village Traders Association and the Carnegie Traders Association know that the railway crossings hurt business and impact the amenity of the local community. The 2012 RACV Redspot survey ranked three of Higgins's level crossings in Victoria's top 10 worst congestion sites: Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena, is No. 1; Koornang Road, Carnegie, is No. 4; and Burke Road, Glen Iris, is No. 5. Since 2011, the Victorian government has been unsuccessful in seeking federal government support via Infrastructure Australia and the Nation Building Program for Commonwealth funding to augment the more than $400 million it has already committed to level crossing removals. I congratulate my state colleagues for focusing on this issue. In their three years of government, they will have removed five level crossings. In the previous state Labor government, over 11 years they removed only three level crossings. There is broad agreement as to the nature of the problem and the need for action. How these projects are funded remains less clear. The magnitude, the costs and the potential productivity dividends require federal intervention. I am pleased to present this petition of more than 1,151 signatures which draws to the attention of the House the severe congestion caused by the regular closure of the level crossings along the Dandenong rail line. I ask the parliament to give greater priority to their removal. I table the petition. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of the residents of Melbourne draws to the attention of the House the severe congestion caused by regular closure of the level crossings along the Dandenong Rail Line. In particular we note: 1. The substantial congestion of pedestrian, car and road freight traffic caused by constant level crossing closures during peak train times. 2. The negative impact for local business and community life as a result of level crossing related traffic congestion. 3. The consequent stifling of economic growth and loss of productivity within the Dandenong Rail Line catchment area, which currently accounts for approximately half of Melbourne's GDP or 9% of national GDP. 4. The failure of the Commonwealth Government to provide any funding, as per the Victorian Government's 2011 Infrastructure Australian Bid, to address level crossings within the 2012 Commonwealth Budget. We therefore ask the House to prioritise the funding for the removal of the level crossings on the Dandenong Rail Lines through road/rail grade separation of level crossings at Koornang Road, Carnegie, Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena and Poath Road, Murrumbeena commencing with the 2013 Commonwealth Budget and subsequently via the next Nation Building Program. from 1,151 citizens Petition received. Charlton Electorate: Education 6557 09:34 Mr COMBET YW6 Charlton You will be pleased to learn that a few weeks ago I opened the Morisset High School salon. The school has invested its own funds to build a hairdressing salon and to employ a TAFE teacher. By the end of this term, students will be able to be on their way to completing a certificate II in hairdressing at the school. It is the only facility of its kind in a public school in the region. An opposition member interjecting— Mr COMBET YW6 Almost. It is a credit to the principal, Mr Mark Sneddon, who is very passionate about skills training in schools and has a tremendous reputation in our region. In his former role as principal of Glendale high school, he was the driving force behind the construction of their trades training centre, which is a commercial kitchen built with federal funding of more than $1.3 million. Students at Glendale high school are now completing certificate I and II qualifications in hospitality as a result. It is a similar story at Callaghan College, Wallsend, which received $2 million in federal funding to build hospitality, metal engineering and construction training facilities, allowing year 10 students to start getting a trade in school. In term 3, Callaghan College will also take part in a pilot program run by the Hunter RDA, teaching a specific 'maths for trades' class, a revision of maths fundamentals to gear kids up for an apprenticeship aptitude test. The stories are the same at Avondale College in Cooranbong in my electorate, St Paul's Booragul and Toronto High School, which have all received federal funding to build trade training centres. Overall since Labor has been in government, close to $9 million has been invested in trades training centres in my electorate of Charlton. Local kids now have more chance to find a career that suits them and it helps address skills shortages in the region. Most importantly, of course, it makes for much better employment opportunities for young people. Programs like this go straight to the heart of Labor values. We have always stood for fair, accessible and high-quality education for everyone, regardless of where they live, and this is especially important in my area. It is a principle that underwrites the government's National Plan for School Improvement, a landmark reform which will have a huge impact on schools in my area. Schools in south-western Lake Macquarie are doing fantastic things as well. Under the National Plan for School Improvement we will see additional resources helping schools to do many great things. I am very proud to be part of a government that is implementing important reforms so that every child gets a great education, but the contribution of trades training to schools and to young people and families in the region cannot be underestimated. Stirling Electorate: Crime 6558 09:37 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Since being elected as the federal member for Stirling in 2004, I have regularly met with constituents, local community groups and local businesses in an effort to maintain a perspective on what they believe is important from their federal representative. One thing has been very consistent since 2004: the issue of greatest concern to my constituents remains crime. We have always tried to make it our No. 1 priority to find ways that we can use the federal government to help, even though, of course, law and order remains the primary responsibility of state and local governments. In Western Australia, due to very rapid growth, there has been a subsequent rise in the crime rate along with the rise in our population. Since 2004, we have managed to secure substantial funding for CCTV throughout parts of the electorate, most notably at Scarborough Beach, which is the premier beach in Western Australia if not the country, and at Nollamara Shopping Centre. Six months ago, I announced with the Leader of the Opposition the coalition's plans for safer streets. This program will provide $50 million to tackle crime hotspots and help local communities deal with the problems of gangs, graffiti and alcohol fuelled violence, including crime hotspots in Stirling. I am very keen to work with the City of Stirling, which does a very good job in this area. It is a large council; it has the resources available to run an extensive community safety patrol around the borders of the council area. I am looking forward to working with the council to try and expand the scope of its existing CCTV network. I might take this opportunity also to mention the Henderson Environmental Centre in North Beach, which is a sustainable building located within the City of Stirling's Star Swamp Reserve. The council and the community are keen to see this centre turn into a regional education hub which will help to promote environmental awareness throughout the community. The Henderson Environmental Centre will be a very valuable asset not just for the residents of Stirling but, hopefully, for the broader Perth community as well. I am very keen to work with the community on ways that the federal government might help to make this centre, which is at the centre of quite a unique wilderness area, develop to its full potential. In the seconds I have left, I will mention a project that ran successfully until the change of government in 2007, and that was the REAL Connections program at Mirrabooka. Mirrabooka is an area within my electorate that traditionally takes a lot of new arrivals. At the moment it has a lot of people coming in from African and Middle Eastern backgrounds. This was a great program that worked with youth from those new communities to make them culturally aware, working with their local community to help them fit into their new country and new lifestyle. (Time expired) St Vincent de Paul CEO Sleepout 6559 09:40 Mr RUDD 83T Griffith The member for Hinkler has just informed me he will rise to speak in a minute on the passing of Mr Bernie Johnson from his electorate. In anticipation of the remarks that he will make, I would like to extend my bipartisan support for his commendation of a person who was a great Indigenous leader from the city of Bundaberg. Sadly, he passed away in the last week. Through the honourable member and through the parliament, I extend my condolences to his family and to the community. I am speaking in the chamber this morning on the question of homelessness. This is a continuing challenge for all Australians. According to the census data, we have more than 105,000 Australians who are homeless and 44,000 are young people. Across Queensland, there are more than 19,000 people sleeping rough tonight. Of those, 8,000 are under the age of 25, 5,000 are homeless as a result of domestic violence and 750 are without a place to call home as a result of mental health challenges. Tonight I am sleeping in the CEO Sleepout, organised by St Vincent de Paul. This is the third St Vinnie's Sleepout that I have participated in. I will be joining hundreds of CEOs, both in Brisbane and around Australia, to raise funds for St Vincent de Paul. Last year we did so and raised $5.3 million across the country. These help support the necessary services for homeless people across Brisbane and regional Queensland. It also supports the Social Housing Program which complements Families Back on Track, which opened earlier this year on the Gold Coast. This particular facility accommodates single parents with kids, with all 27 supported living units now occupied. I am proud of the fact that, since 2007, the government has invested an unprecedented $26 billion into housing and homelessness services. This includes $5.6 billion towards the Social Housing Initiative, which included building 19,600 new homes and repairing 80,000 existing units of social housing—that makes a huge difference out there in the community; $4.3 billion went towards the National Rental Affordability Scheme, NRAS, which is delivering 50,000 new affordable rental homes; and $450 million through the Housing Affordability Fund reduces the cost for new homebuyers by helping councils and developers with the costs of roads, cabling, sewerage and other infrastructure. Also, in my electorate we have contributed to the construction of Common Ground. These now exist in each major city in Australia. In Brisbane, a $40 million-facility, funded primarily by the Commonwealth, now accommodates rough sleepers—some 140 units in all. This has been a good development. One sad thing, though, is the future of the Queensland Tenant Advise and Advocacy Service, which supports about 80,000 people each year. Unfortunately, the Liberal-National Party government in Queensland has abolished funding for the future of this terrific service. I would really ask them to reconsider that. It performs a valuable function for all the homeless in Queensland. Solomon Electorate: Sport 6560 09:43 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I rise today to acknowledge the latest recipients of the Solomon local sporting grants. We were very fortunate to have an additional round of funds made available to us, which means that we were able to allocate 10 more individual grants and one team grant for this very popular program in my electorate. Freya Stephenson and Andrea Jong both went to the Australian under-13 national hockey championships in Perth. Jerem Gesch, Thomas Callaghan and Joseph Baronio went to the Australian under-15 boys national hockey championship in Adelaide. Joel Curby went to the Australian under-13 national hockey championships in Nowra in New South Wales. Daniel Maher went to Victoria, representing the Northern Territory in the under-12 school sports competition. Chelsea Hambour went to Adelaide for the Australian basketball championships, Michael Shepherd went to Sydney for the national junior tennis championships, and Kierean Tamaotai went to Coffs Harbour for the national soccer youth championships. All of these outstanding athletes will receive $500 to go towards their travel expenses. As those competitions have already occurred, that money will be reimbursed to their families. The Darwin junior tennis team will be competing at the NT Open Championships. The team will receive $3,000 to assist with travel and other costs associated with getting them to Alice Springs for the Northern Territory open in July. I would like to wish Jeremy Bintzs, Henry Liu, Jonathan Tong and Ben Long all the very best for this competition. During this competition the Northern Territory representatives will be selected to compete at the Australian championships. I would like to take what little time I have left to talk about a constituent of mine, Grant Tambling, who spent many years in this place and the other place. It is his 70th birthday today. On behalf of all of us here—I am sure this will have bipartisan support—I wish him a very happy 70th birthday. His time here has not been forgotten. A card has been signed by the people in this place. We wish him all the very best for his 70th birthday and hope he has many more birthdays in the future. I will be presenting him with his card tomorrow at a function, where he will be celebrating with his family and friends. Happy birthday, Grant. 09:46 The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 I am sure we all concur. He was a great senator for the Northern Territory. Lindsay Electorate: Radioactive Waste 6561 09:46 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay Last Thursday, over 120 local residents in my community gathered at the St Marys Memorial Hall to protest against the O'Farrell government's plan to ship thousands of tonnes of radioactive waste from a site on Sydney's North Shore at Hunters Hill to a waste facility in my electorate in Kemps Creek. The people of Western Sydney have spoken very loudly on this question. We do not believe that radioactive waste should be shipped out from the North Shore and dumped in Western Sydney. We are not a dumping ground, and we will not tolerate this treatment. I joined with a number of local representatives—my parliamentary colleague the member for McMahon, Chris Bowen, and councillors Prue Car, Greg Davies, Karen McKeown and Michelle Tormey. Prue Car, of course, is very much part of the leadership of the Western Sydney Residents Against Radioactive Dumping. I thank them. They hosted the event. I provided some assistance to fund the event as a result of a decision by Penrith City Council not to do so, a decision which I think is deeply regrettable. Notwithstanding that, all of the local state Liberal members were invited. None of them attended. Premier O'Farrell was invited. He did not attend and he did not send a representative. The responsible minister, Minister Pearce, was also missing in action. It was a shame because the residents that gathered approached the meeting in a constructive way and there were some outcomes from that meeting. Can I emphasise the concern that residents have. The waste facility at Kemps Creek can take material with radioactive content up to 100 becquerels per gram. Soil samples taken from the site at Hunters Hill in some cases represent radioactive levels of seven times the acceptable limit—700 becquerels per gram in some instances. This is why residents are concerned. Of course, the site at Hunters Hill has been linked to cancer clusters in the neighbouring community. Whilst we are sympathetic to the need to deal with the issues there, we do not believe an acceptable solution is to ship that waste out to Kemps Creek. What did the meeting agree on in terms of a way forward? The meeting agreed that we should petition the state government and also local councils to support our efforts to seek a full feasibility study in relation to encapsulation or encasement of the waste on site. This is something that was identified as a feasible option under the state government's own reports. We are now calling on them to undertake a more detailed study. I note that in response to this the local Liberal state member Stuart Ayres said that he could not support a feasibility study into encasing waste at Hunters Hill until he had all the relevant advice and information. I would simply say to Mr Ayres: join our campaign to secure this review and then all of the information will be available. That is what a feasibility study is designed to do. We will not stand for it and we will continue to fight on this issue. Johnson, Mr Burnie 6561 09:49 Mr NEVILLE KV5 Hinkler I rise to acknowledge the passing of an Aboriginal elder in my electorate of Hinkler—Bernie Johnson of Bundaberg. An elder of the Gurang Gurang community, Mr Johnson was 73 years old, when on Friday last he was unexpectedly taken by a severe stroke. Best known in the community for his strong advocacy of Indigenous issues, and for performing his welcome to country at various ceremonies—particularly the Bundaberg Regional Council citizenship ceremonies—Burnie also spent many hours visiting schools in the region, giving students lessons on dance, didgeridoo, boomerang-throwing, story-telling, painting and local Indigenous culture. Never one for hiding behind the victim mentality, he preferred to build bridges. In 2011 Burnie was named Bundaberg Regional Council citizen of the year—an award he richly deserved. His last official function for the Bundaberg Regional Council was his part in the opening of the Bundaberg recreational precinct on 31 May. Burnie was a man of incredible passion. He loved entertaining, and his wry sense of humour made people laugh and put them at ease. In one particular, very politically incorrect jibe, he said to me one day, 'Do you know why we Indigenous people like barbecued echidna?' As if you could barbecue echidna! I said, 'No, Burnie. I find that fascinating. Why do you barbecue echidna?' He said, 'We like barbecued echidna because it's got built-in toothpicks.' During his visit to Bundaberg several years ago, the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was so taken with Burnie's welcoming words that he contacted Burnie and said, 'Burnie, it's Kevin Rudd here. I'd like to use some of your words at an up-coming Pacific Forum.' At first Burnie thought someone was having a go at him but later discovered it really was Kevin and was very chuffed at the compliment he had been paid. Burnie loved all forms of sport. As a young man he was also a boxer. He was an avid Rugby League player. He played for a number of Bundaberg clubs and for St George in Sydney. He later became a Rugby League and soccer referee, and coached junior soccer teams. Burnie was president of his beloved Avondale Rugby League club. He was also a volunteer for Drug Arm and YMCA and supported NAIDOC week. Burnie had a gentle, embracing personality. His was a life well lived. Rest in peace. Throsby Electorate: Rail Infrastructure 6562 09:52 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby I want to speak this morning about an important piece of economic infrastructure in my electorate and the neighbouring electorate of Cunningham in the Illawarra. It is the Maldon-Dombarton rail link. In September 1983 the Wran state Labor government announced that the Maldon to Dombarton line would be constructed and completed by 1986. Unfortunately, in June 1988 the incoming Greiner state government cancelled the project, contrary to their election promise. The Maldon-Dombarton line is to provide an alternative to the existing Illawarra and Moss Vale-Unanderra lines for the transport of freight to and from Port Kembla. It involves laying only around 35 kilometres of track, with multiple passing loops and new bridges over the Nepean and Cordeaux rivers. After more than two decades of inaction, the incoming federal Labor government showed a genuine determination to complete this iconic infrastructure project. This rail link is back on the agenda today, thanks to the nearly $30 million of funding provided since Labor come to office in late 2007. The federally funded engineering, planning and environmental works are now under way. Yesterday, I was astounded to hear that the New South Wales government had claimed credit for $21.4 million of federal government funding in the New South Wales budget. Indeed, they put a media release out to that effect. Not surprisingly, the people of the Illawarra feel—quite frankly—ripped off by the O'Farrell government. The recent sale of Port Kembla brought the government $760 million, yet they have promised to return only $100 million to the region. That is why my local newspaper is describing the New South Wales government's budget as a kick in the guts for the region. Even worse, they have now had the audacity to claim credit for the federal funding of the Maldon-Dombarton project. The fact is, the New South Wales Liberals have not put one cent towards rail funding. During the lightning visit of the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, to the region—and for a few moments he thought that he was in Newcastle and said as much—he described the Maldon-Dombarton rail link as an urban rail project which therefore should be funded by the state government, showing how he little he knew about the local region. The people of the Illawarra know that the best chance of this project being completed is to get matched funding from the state and federal governments. The federal government is playing its part. That is why the member for Cunningham, Sharon Bird, and I are calling on the minister for infrastructure, arguably Australia's best ever Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, to come to the Illawarra and inspect the progress of the works and talk about what we can do to ensure that this project can be completed. We need the New South Wales Liberals to do their part. The Maldon-Dombarton rail link is unfinished business for the Illawarra. It is critical infrastructure. Let us get it done. Refugees 6563 09:55 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan There were 1.1 million new refugees around the world in 2012, with a total of 45.2 million displaced and with Syria a new major source. So says Oliver Laughland and Nick Evershed in the Guardian from the UK: There were 1.1 million new refugees around the world in 2012, the highest rise in new refugee numbers since 1999, statistics published by the United Nations on Wednesday show. The annual UNHCR global trends in displacement report highlights that last year 7.6 million people were newly displaced due to conflict or persecution, with a total of 45.2 million people around the world in situations of displacement, meaning that more people are refugees or internally displaced than at any point since 1994. On an average day in 2012, 23,000 people were forced to flee their homes around the world, which is more than total number of people claiming asylum in Australia for the entire year. In a statement to the press Rick Towle, the UNHCR regional representative in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific, said: 'This reminds us that the number of refugees and asylum seekers in Australia remains relatively small by global standards.' The remarks follow Towle’s comments made on Monday that expressed serious concern at the 'sharp deterioration' of the way Australia protects asylum seekers who arrive by boat. In a statement delivered at the beginning of Refugee Week, Towle also condemned the ''increasingly negative and, at times, mean-spirited'' nature of the debate on irregular maritime arrivals to Australia. The fresh statistics point to conflict in Syria as a 'major new factor in global displacement'. … They indicate an alarming number of unaccompanied or separated children claiming asylum, with a total of 21,300 asylum claims made last year. Europe received two-thirds of these, with Indonesia receiving 1,200. The statistics reveal that Australia had 0.3% of the world’s refugees at the end of 2012, or just over 30,000. Pakistan had the highest number of refugees with 1,638,456, which is 16.58% of the world’s total. Australia had 2.14% of the world’s asylum seekers at the end of 2012, with just over 20,000, South Africa had the highest number with 230,442, constituting 24.6% of the total number of asylum seekers globally. In total there were 10 countries that housed more asylum seekers than Australia. I make these points about the facts for this reason: I know that there is concern in my community and in every other community and even at my dinner table about the number of people coming to this country, their colour, who they are and their religion. I understand that. Quite often, some tend to take the high moral ground and say, 'How can we treat these people like this?' without reflecting on the genuine concerns within our community. I understand that people fear these situations. I am concerned about that. We can address that. But let us try to work through this new paradigm together, this new world that we live in, which is not the same as the 1950s, in the best interests of this nation and its people. Mission Australia 6564 09:59 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney On 7 June, I officially opened Annie Green Court in my electorate in Sydney. It is a purpose built aged care facility for frail aged homeless people run by Mission Australia. I want to pay tribute to the work of Mission Australia in this respect. Annie Green was a pioneering welfare worker and evangelist whose work in South Australia is remembered for having improved the lives of disadvantaged women. It is fitting, then, that Annie Green Court, along with Mission Australia's other nearby facility, Charles Chambers Court, is the only aged care facility in the heart of Sydney with places for elderly homeless women. I am proud that the federal Labor government funded this $16-million new aged-care facility as part of our broader commitment to halving the rate of homelessness by 2020. I visited the site first when plans were unveiled for the new building, which replaced a very dilapidated old nursing home that Mission Australia had been running on that site but had had to close because it had run down so terribly. After almost four years, this facility means that 72 frail, aged, homeless people now have a secure place to call home—a small room with an attached bathroom. The facility is set out in groups of around 12 so that people can sit together at dinner time with people who are familiar to them; not in a big dormitory-style facility where people get lost in the crowd but in smaller groups that are closer to the way families are constituted. It is beautiful to see this brand-new facility, and it makes me so proud to be part of a government that has invested around $26 billion in affordable housing since coming to government. In fact since coming to government, we have had a direct contribution to one in 20 homes built in Australia, such as these lovely aged-care facilities which provide accommodation for people who would otherwise be homeless, and more than 20,000 new units of public housing. There are tens of thousands of National Rental Affordability Scheme properties built already and occupied by families who would otherwise struggle to pay the rent, such as a 57-unit affordable housing complex in Zetland that I opened in 2010 and the beautiful Common Ground facility in Camperdown for 52 people who were previously homeless, including a man I used to see sleeping rough on King Street every day who now has a regular place that is his own and where he can be safe. The thing I am proudest of in our first two terms of government is our emphasis on housing and homelessness that has given people security, dignity and a place to call home. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 6565 BILLS Tax Laws Amendment (Fairer Taxation of Excess Concessional Contributions) Bill 2013, Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Charge) Bill 2013 6565

Tax Laws Amendment (Fairer Taxation of Excess Concessional Contributions) Bill 2013

Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Charge) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6565 10:02 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey I rise on behalf on the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney. The coalition will be supporting the passage of these two bills. The government introduced them into the House of Representatives yesterday. The government has sought coalition support to expedite the passage of them through the parliament. The coalition has taken a stance on rushed legislation in the past. I was speaking about this issue on amendments that were made necessary by rushed legislation on the unclaimed money and other measures bill earlier in the week. As I said at the outset, the coalition will assist supporting these. They form part of the government's superannuation changes announced back in April of this year and were also included in the budget delivered just last month. The bills belatedly remove the extreme penalty that arises when individuals inadvertently exceed their annual superannuation concessional contribution cap, currently at $25,000 per year for all taxpayers. When this occurs, more often than not, it is an honest mistake. Currently excess concessional contributions are subject to contributions tax at a rate of 31½ per cent, adding to the 15 per cent contributions tax rate and taking the total to 46½ per cent, regardless of the individual's level of income or the marginal tax rate. These contributions are generally not included in an individual's taxable income. The amendments will instead include excess concessional contributions in an individual's taxable income which will then be taxed at their marginal rate, not at 46½ per cent indiscriminately. As a result this excess is not effectively subject to concessional contributions tax at 15 per cent or excess concessional contributions tax at 31½ per cent. The bills also allow individuals to elect to release an amount of excess concessional contributions from their superannuation interests. The associated cognate bill, the Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Charge) Bill 2013 imposes a charge on taxpayers who have concessional contributions in excess of their annual cap. This will ensure that individuals do not receive an advantage over taxpayers who do not exceed their annual cap. To achieve this, any tax shortfall that an individual has for a time or might hold and therefore benefit from will be charged the shortfall interest charge for the period that it is held. The tax shortfall or potential benefit is in effect the excess contribution for the year multiplied by the difference in tax rates between the individual's marginal tax rate for that year and the 15 per cent concessional contribution rate. The shortfall interest charge is based on the 90-day bank-accepted bill as published by the Reserve Bank, plus a three per cent uplift factor. The coalition has been on record with our position on this policy for a very long time, particularly through our shadow spokesman, Senator Cormann. At present, people who inadvertently breach their concessional caps are hit with a top marginal rate of 46½ per cent irrespective of what their actual tax rate is on their income taken as take-home pay. The situation is even worse in relation to inadvertent breaches of non-concessional contribution caps. Non-concessional contributions are made in after-tax income, which has already been taxed by up to 46½ per cent. After the penalty is applied, even for inadvertent breaches of those non-concessional caps, the government effectively imposes a tax of up to 93 per cent. We have made the point that this is hyper-punitive, to say the least. It must be remembered that this tax of up to 93 cents in the dollar is targeting people who are trying to do the right thing by saving more towards their retirement to get themselves into a position where they can look after their own needs in retirement and do not have to rely on the public purse. Yet the government hits them with a tax of up to 93 per cent when an inadvertent error is made, often in circumstances, of course, outside of their control. This should not be imposing a cost on the budget either. The point that our shadow spokesman has made repeatedly is: surely the government is not planning its revenue estimates on the basis of an assumption about people saving for retirement making errors so the government can collect revenue. The government is still not fixing this problem in this legislation, and we maintain that it should have. Finally, I am advised that the minister's officers have been asked by our shadow spokesman for an explanation as to the difference between the costings provided in the budget—which came in at the cost, I am told, of $60 million over the forward estimates—and outlined in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. The explanatory memorandum states that these measures will have a cost to the budget of only $10 million. I am also advised that no detailed breakdown or background as to the differences within these costings have been provided, and so we would ask in good faith that, as the minister sums up, he address this issue and reconcile the difference, out of respect for the parliament. As stated at the outset, the coalition will be supporting the passage of both of these bills. 10:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong First of all, I would like to thank the members who have contributed to this debate. Currently, excess contributions above the concessional contributions caps are generally taxed at the top marginal rate of 46½ per cent regardless of an individual's income. This is unfair for lower- and middle-income earners. The changes contained in the legislation will enable excess concessional contributions to be included in an individual's taxable income and allow them to be taxed at the individual's marginal tax rate, plus an interest charge, regardless of their income or the cause of the breach. In addition, individuals will be able to withdraw excess concessional contributions from their super provider. This is the latest in a long line of financial services amendments bills that this parliament has passed. I believe fixing up excess contributions is an appropriate outcome for this parliament and it is one which will stand the test of time. This Labor government has achieved a lot in superannuation in terms of legislative reform. We have tackled adequacy by lifting superannuation over the next seven years from nine per cent to 12 per cent. We have improved fairness for people who earn less than $37,000 a year. They do not pay a 15 per cent tax on their superannuation. We do not see the point in perpetuating the gender gap in savings between men and women for retirement. We believe that low-paid workers who go to work every day should have a chance to save money for their retirement. So adequacy has been tackled and fairness has been tackled. We also believe that these concessional contribution issues that we are dealing with in this bill tackle the issue of fairness. We have seen downward pressure on superannuation fees and charges through the development of MySuper. And also through the SuperStream proposals we believe we are making the system of superannuation more efficient and effective in the back-office transactions, decreasing pressure on people's savings accounts. We have also tackled conflicts of interest and improved public confidence in the system through our Future of Financial Advice reforms and indeed through our MySuper changes and also through improvements to the governance arrangements, giving power to APRA to be able to look behind the arrangements of superannuation trustees such that people can have renewed confidence in the system. We repudiate the attack on industry funds perpetuated by those in the coalition. We believe that, for good governance, it should be about giving APRA the powers to intervene directly in specific matters rather than just going after a class of superannuation fund altogether. When you look at the extensive list of legislation, I would like to acknowledge, in case I do not get this opportunity again before the end of the parliament, the hardworking people from Treasury, APRA, ASIC and indeed the Australian Taxation Office. I also acknowledge the work of all those in the industry who have provided so much advice and counsel and pragmatic, business focused advice. I believe what motivates the vast bulk of the debate in superannuation, as it should be, is the best interests of consumers. Furthermore, when we look at the budget measure, a fairer excess contributions tax system, it was costed on the basis that individuals would receive a refundable tax offset, where applicable, for the 15 per cent tax already paid on contributions within the fund. The refundable offset may result in individuals paying a lower rate of tax on excess contributions than their contributions under the cap. This is not the intention of the reform. The offset is now non-refundable. The measure was costed on the basis that the interest charged would apply from 1 July of the year following the year in which the contribution was made. However, to deter individuals from deliberately breaching the caps—which, by the way, I do not think happens a great deal; it is for the sake of policy consistency—the new interest charge will be applied from 1 July of the year in which the contribution is made. There are also some other parameter variations related to other interactions with the personal income tax superannuation systems. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Charge) Bill 2013 6568

Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Charge) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6568 Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013 6568

Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6568 10:16 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey On behalf on the shadow Treasurer, the coalition will not be opposing the Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill in the House. We do have some concerns but we will allow it through the House and we reserve our final position subject to the findings of the Senate economics committee inquiry. Very briefly, schedule 1 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide income tax relief to superannuation funds where there is a mandatory transfer of default members' account balances to a MySuper product in another superannuation fund. The introduction of MySuper imposes heightened duties on trustees to act in the best interests of their members. For some funds, this could necessitate the transfer of default members' account balances to other funds. Funds not wishing to offer MySuper products are required under the MySuper rules to transfer existing default members' account balances to a superannuation fund offering a MySuper product by 1 July 2017. If such transfers create an income tax liability or if relevant losses remain with the transferring entity, the members whose balances are transferred would be adversely impacted. Without allowing a transferring entity to transfer losses to another fund, members account balances would have to be reduced by the value of those losses. I am advised these measures were announced by the minister back on 24 April 2012. They have a small, unquantifiable cost to revenue over the forward estimates. Industry has expressed concern that the amendments as drafted are too narrow and have the potential to overlook some fund members and/or funds who will be caught under capital gains tax rules. As I said, the coalition are not going to oppose these amendment in the principle or in this House but are seeking further detail through that Senate economics committee inquiry. Scheduled 2 amends the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 to give effect to changes that are necessary as a result of implementing and sustaining the superannuation contribution concession contained in schedule 3 of the bill we just dealt with. The amendments allow a lump sum to be paid from a superannuation interest in the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme to meet a debt account discharge liability for Australian Defence Force members of the scheme who are very high-income earners. As a result, a members' superannuation benefits, including any revisionary pension to be paid to the surviving spouse of a deceased member, will be reduced. Under the tax and super laws amendments that we have just dealt with, defined benefits will also have to pay additional taxation for defined benefit schemes where benefits are set independently to the level of an individual's contributions. Special rules are required to determine the value of certain annual subscription contributions so that the $300,000 threshold can be applied. These rules will be set out separately in regulation and likely require complex calculations. Any amounts to be paid will generally be deferred and will be paid with interest when the individual starts to receive their benefit. These measures, in our view, should have been part of the substantive bill, but clearly the government with its rushed timetable has not been able to do so. As with a number of bills we have dealt with in the period since the budget, due to the budget emergency the coalition has accepted the substantive measures and will not be opposing the schedule. However, this matter has been referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for further consideration, as our shadow spokesman remains concerned about any unintended consequences with a detrimental impact on the veterans community. As I said at the outset, we will not oppose the bill in this place and we will await the Senate Economics Committee's thorough inquiry into the bill. 10:21 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I would like to thank all the members who have contributed to this debate, including the member for Casey. Whilst I cannot always convince the member for Casey of the strength of my arguments, I always know he listens carefully, and for that much I am grateful. Schedule 1 of the MySuper reforms will require superannuation funds not offering a MySuper product to transfer their default members' account benefits to a fund offering a MySuper product by 1 July 2017. Schedule 1 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow such a superannuation fund to transfer losses and deferred tax liabilities for the assets transferred. This means default members of superannuation funds will not be adversely affected if their account balances are compulsorily transferred to a MySuper product in another fund as a result of the MySuper reforms. Schedule 2 makes consequential amendments to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. The changes relate to sustaining the superannuation contribution concession and are necessary to ensure the treatment of Defence personnel in defined benefit funds is consistent with the treatment of very high-income earners with defined benefit interests in non-Defence superannuation schemes. The amendments will enable the trustee of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme to release a lump sum for the purposes of meeting a debt account discharge liability and to reduce the benefit as a consequence of that payment. The government will move amendments to this bill. These amendments implement changes to default superannuation arrangements for employees to whom a modern award applies. I acknowledge the cooperation of the opposition in this matter. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 6570 10:23 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together. Leave granted. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG I move government amendments (1) and (2) as circulated together: (1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 25 (after line 13), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3—Default superannuation Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 1 After item 3 of Schedule 1    Insert: 3A Section 12    Insert:    employer MySuper product: see subsection 23A(1B). 2 After item 4 of Schedule 1    Insert: 4A Section 12    Insert:    first stage test: see section 156Q. 3 Item 5 of Schedule 1    Repeal the item, substitute: 5 Section 12    Insert:    interim application period: see paragraph 156N(2)(b). 5A Section 12 (definition of MySuper product )    Repeal the definition, substitute:    MySuper product: see subsection 23A(1). 5B Section 12    Insert:    Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products: see paragraph 156L(1)(a). 4 Item 6 of Schedule 1    Repeal the item, substitute: 6 Section 12    Insert:    second stage test:    (a) in relation to a standard MySuper product—see subsection 156H(2); and    (b) in relation to an employer MySuper product—see section 156S. 6A Section 12    Insert:    standard application period: see paragraph 156N(2)(a). 6B Section 12    Insert:    standard MySuper product: see subsection 23A(1A). 5 Item 9 of Schedule 1 (new subsection 23A(1))    Repeal the subsection, substitute:       (1) MySuper product has the meaning given by the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.       (1A) A standard MySuper product is a MySuper product that is not an employer MySuper product.       (1B) An employer MySuper product is a tailored MySuper product or a corporate MySuper product. 6 Item 11 of Schedule 1 (at the end of the new paragraph relating to Division 4A)    Add: It also sets out the process for making the Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper products in a 4 yearly review, and amending the schedule after it is made to include other employer MySuper products. If an employer MySuper product is on the schedule, an employer covered by a modern award can make contributions, for the benefit of a default fund employee, to a superannuation fund that offers the product (see subsection 149D(1A)). 7 Item 13 of Schedule 1 (heading to new subsection 149D(1))    Omit "generic", substitute "standard". 8 Item 13 of Schedule 1 (new paragraph 149D(1)(a))    Omit "generic", substitute "standard". 9 Item 13 of Schedule 1 (new paragraph 149D(1)(d))    Before "(2)", insert "(1A),". 10 Item 13 of Schedule 1 (at the end of new subsection 149D(1))    Add:       Note: If a superannuation fund is specified in the default fund term of a modern award in relation to a standard MySuper product and, in addition to offering the standard MySuper product, the fund offers a tailored MySuper product that a default fund employee is entitled to hold, then any contributions made by the employer to the fund for the benefit of that employee will be paid into the tailored MySuper product instead of the standard MySuper product (see section 29WB of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993). 11 Item 13 of Schedule 1 (after new subsection 149D(1))    Insert:         Superannuation funds offering employer MySuper products on the schedule    (1A) A default fund term of a modern award must permit an employer covered by the award to make contributions, for the benefit of a default fund employee, to a superannuation fund that offers an employer MySuper product that:       (a) relates to the employer; and       (b) is on the Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products. Note: The Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products is made during a 4 yearly review of default fund terms of modern awards under Division 4A of Part 2‑3. 12 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new subsection 156A(3))    Repeal the subsection, substitute:         First stage—the Default Superannuation List    (3) In the first stage, the FWC must make the Default Superannuation List for the purposes of the review.    Note: In the first stage, the FWC must be constituted by an Expert Panel for the purposes of making the list and determining applications to include standard MySuper products on the list (see paragraphs 617(4)(a) and (b)). 13 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (before new subsection 156A(4))    Insert: Second stage—reviewing and varying default fund terms 14 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (at the end of new section 156A)    Add:         The Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products       (5) In the 4 yearly review, the FWC must also make the Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products.       Note: The FWC must be constituted by an Expert Panel for the purposes of making the schedule and determining applications to include employer MySuper products on the schedule (see paragraphs 617(4)(c) and (d)). 15 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new subsection 156B(2))    Omit "generic", substitute "standard". 16 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (heading to new section 156C)    After "list a", insert "standard". 17 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new subsections 156C(1) and (3))    Omit "generic", substitute "standard". 18 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (heading to new section 156D)    After "list a", insert "standard". 19 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (heading to new section 156E)    After "list a", insert "standard". 20 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new subsection 156E(1))    Omit "generic", substitute "standard". 21 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new subsection 156E(2))    Omit "interest", substitute "interests". 22 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new subsection 156G(2))    Omit "generic", substitute "standard". 23 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new paragraph 156H(1)(a))    Omit "in relation to a generic MySuper product". 24 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new paragraph 156H(1)(b))    Omit "10", substitute "15". 25 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new paragraph 156H(1)(b))    Omit "generic", substitute "standard". 26 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (note to new subsection 156H(1))    Omit "10", substitute "15". 27 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new subsections 156H(2) and (3))    Omit "generic", substitute "standard". 28 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new subsection 156H(3))    Omit "10", substitute "15". 29 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new subsection 156K(1))    After "149D(1),", insert "(1A),". 30 Item 18 of Schedule 1 (new section 156L)    Repeal the section, substitute: Subdivision D—The Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products 156L The Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products    (1) In the 4 yearly review, the FWC must:       (a) make and publish the Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products; and       (b) revoke any previous Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products.       Note: If an employer MySuper product is on the schedule, an employer covered by a modern award can make contributions, for the benefit of a default fund employee, to a superannuation fund that offers the product (see subsection 149D(1A)).    (2) When the schedule is made, it must specify any employer MySuper product that the FWC has determined under section 156P is to be included on the schedule.    (3) After the schedule is made, it must be amended to specify any employer MySuper product that the FWC has determined under section 156P is to be included on the schedule.    Note: The FWC must be constituted by an Expert Panel for the purposes of amending the schedule (see paragraph 617(5)(b)).    (4) If the schedule is amended as referred to in subsection (3), the FWC must publish the schedule as amended.    (5) The schedule must not specify any other product. 156M FWC to invite applications to include employer MySuper products on schedule    (1) Before making the schedule, the FWC must publish a notice that invites:       (a) superannuation funds that offer an employer MySuper product; and       (b) employers to which an employer MySuper product relates; to apply to the FWC to have the product included on the schedule.    (2) The notice must specify the period in which an application may be made. 156N Making applications to include employer MySuper products on schedule    (1) The following may apply to the FWC to have an employer MySuper product included on the schedule:       (a) a superannuation fund that offers the product;       (b) an employer to which the product relates.    (2) The application must be made:       (a) in the period (the standard application period) specified in the notice under section 156M; or       (b) in the period (the interim application period) that:          (i) starts immediately after the schedule is made under paragraph 156L(1)(a); and          (ii) ends immediately before the next 4th anniversary of the commencement of this Part. Note: Paragraph (2)(a) deals with applications that are made in a 4 yearly review of default fund terms, and paragraph (2)(b) deals with applications that are made outside a 4 yearly review.    (3) The application must also:       (a) be accompanied by any fees that are prescribed by the regulations; and       (b) provide information relating to the first stage criteria.    (4) The FWC must publish any application made under subsection (1).    (5) However, if an application includes information that is claimed by the applicant to be confidential or commercially sensitive, and the FWC is satisfied that the information is confidential or commercially sensitive:       (a) the FWC may decide not to publish the information; and       (b) if it does so, it must instead publish a summary of the information which contains sufficient detail to allow a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information (without disclosing anything that is confidential or commercially sensitive).    (6) A reference in this Act (other than in this section) in relation to an application made under subsection (1) includes a reference to a summary referred to in paragraph (5)(b).    (7) Only one application in relation to an employer MySuper product may be made under subsection (1) in the period that:       (a) starts at the start of the standard application period; and       (b) ends at the end of the interim application period. 156P FWC to determine applications    (1) If an application is made under subsection 156N(1) to have an employer MySuper product included on the schedule, the FWC must make a determination about whether to include the product on the schedule.    Note: The FWC must be constituted by an Expert Panel for the purposes of making this determination (see paragraphs 617(4)(d) and (5)(a)).    (2) The FWC must not determine that the product is to be included on the schedule unless the product satisfies the first stage test and the second stage test. 156Q The first stage test       An employer MySuper product satisfies the first stage test if the FWC is satisfied that including the product on the Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products would be in the best interests of default fund employees, or a particular class of those employees, taking into account:    (a) the information provided in the application; and    (b) the first stage criteria; and    (c) any submissions that were made in relation to whether the product satisfies the first stage test. 156R Submissions about the first stage test    (1) The FWC must ensure that all persons and bodies have a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions to the FWC about whether an employer MySuper product satisfies the first stage test.    (2) If:       (a) a person or body makes a written submission in relation to whether an employer MySuper product satisfies the first stage test; and       (b) the person or body has an interest in relation to:          (i) the superannuation fund that offers the product; or          (ii) if the person or body refers to another superannuation fund in the submission—that superannuation fund; then the person or body must disclose that interest in the submission.    (3) The FWC must publish any submission that is made. 156S The second stage test       An employer MySuper product satisfies the second stage test if the FWC is satisfied that including the product on the Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products would be in the best interests of default fund employees of an employer to which the product relates, or a particular class of those employees, taking into account:    (a) any submissions that were made in relation to whether the product satisfies the second stage test; and    (b) any other matter the FWC considers relevant. 156T Submissions about the second stage test    (1) The FWC must ensure that the following persons have a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions to the FWC about whether an employer MySuper product satisfies the second stage test:       (a) an employee of an employer to which the product relates;       (b) an employer to which the product relates;       (c) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).    (2) If:       (a) a person or body (whether or not a person referred to in subsection (1)) makes a written submission in relation to whether an employer MySuper product satisfies the second stage test; and       (b) the person or body has an interest in relation to:          (i) the superannuation fund that offers the product; or          (ii) if the person or body refers to another superannuation fund in the submission—that superannuation fund; then the person or body must disclose that interest in the submission.    (3) The FWC must publish any submission that is made. Subdivision E—Publishing documents under this Division 156U Publishing documents under this Division       If the FWC is required by this Division to publish a document, the FWC must publish the document on its website or by any other means that the FWC considers appropriate. 31 Item 20 of Schedule 1 (new subsection 159A(1))    Omit "generic", substitute "standard". 32 Item 39 of Schedule 2    Repeal the item, substitute: 39 At the end of section 617    Add: Expert Panel for 4 yearly review of default fund terms    (4) In a 4 yearly review of default fund terms of modern awards, the following must be made by an Expert Panel constituted for the purposes of the review:       (a) the Default Superannuation List;       (b) a determination under section 156E on an application to have a standard MySuper product included on the Default Superannuation List;       (c) the Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products;       (d) a determination under section 156P on an application made in the standard application period to have an employer MySuper product included on the Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products.       Note: For the constitution of an Expert Panel for those purposes, see subsection 620(1A).         Expert Panel for amending the Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products    (5) If an application is made in the interim application period to have an employer MySuper product included on the Schedule of Approved Employer MySuper Products, the following must be made by an Expert Panel constituted for the purposes of determining the application:       (a) a determination under section 156P on the application;       (b) if the determination is to include the product on the schedule—an amendment of the schedule to specify the product.       Note: For the constitution of an Expert Panel for those purposes, see subsection 620(1A). 33 Item 43 of Schedule 2 (new subsection 620(1A))    Repeal the subsection, substitute:         Constitution of an Expert Panel for 4 yearly reviews of default fund terms etc.    (1A) An Expert Panel constituted under this section for a purpose referred to in subsection 617(4) or (5) consists of 7 FWC Members (except as provided by section 622), and must include:       (a) the President, or a Vice President or Deputy President appointed by the President to be the Chair of the Panel; and       (b) 3 Expert Panel Members who have knowledge of, or experience in, one or more of the following fields:          (i) finance;          (ii) investment management;          (iii) superannuation. 34 Item 1 of Schedule 11 (after new clause 2)    Insert: 2A Transitional provision—when first variations of default fund term take effect    (1) This clause applies to the first 4 yearly review of default fund terms of modern awards under Division 4A of Part 2‑3 (as inserted by Schedule 1 to the amending Act).    (2) In the review, determinations under that Division (whether made under section 156H or 156J) varying the default fund term of a modern award:       (a) must take effect at the same time; and       (b) must not take effect before 1 January 2015. 2B Transitional provision—modern awards made on or after 1 January 2014       If a modern award is made in the period that starts on 1 January 2014 and ends on 31 December 2017, then, until the default fund term of the award is varied after that period under Division 4A of Part 2‑3 (as inserted by Schedule 1 to the amending Act), this Act has effect in relation to the award as if subsection 149D(1A) (as inserted by that Schedule) were as follows: Superannuation funds offering employer MySuper products    (1A) A default fund term of a modern award must permit an employer covered by the award to make contributions, for the benefit of a default fund employee, to a superannuation fund that offers an employer MySuper product that relates to the employer. These amendments implement changes to default superannuation arrangements for employees to whom a modern award applies. The new schedule 3 of the bill amends the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 to allow an employer to make contributions for default fund employees to whom a modern award applies to a superannuation fund in respect of an employer MySuper product—that is, a tailored or corporate MySuper product—subject to the product being approved by the Fair Work Commission. The amendments would establish a two-stage approval process under which an expert panel of the Fair Work Commission will assess employer MySuper products to determine whether they are in the best interests of the relevant default fund employees. This approval process, including the legislated criteria for both stages of assessment, is largely consistent with the process for generic MySuper products that was established in the Fair Work Amendment Act. The amendments will also increase the maximum number of funds that can generally be specified in a modern award from 10 to 15. This addresses concerns that employers covered by multiple modern awards could be prevented from using employer-specific subplans of generic superannuation products. This could arise because, to use a subplan for all employees, the generic product must be included in every modern award covering the employer. There was a concern from industry—from corporate funds—that the existing limit of 10 funds might see some high-performing funds not being included in particular modern awards where there are more than 10 funds with highly suitable generic superannuation products. The proposed amendments ensure that high-performing funds have reasonable prospects of being specified in modern awards for which the FWC—the Fair Work Commission—assesses them as highly suitable for employees covered by the award. The measures will also provide certainty that stakeholders have sought regarding when arrangements may change by not requiring any changes to existing arrangements before at least 1 January 2015. These amendments have been developed following an extensive Commonwealth consultation with employers, unions and superannuation industry stakeholders following the passage of the Fair Work Amendment Act last year. I would like to thank those stakeholders who have invested a significant amount of time and effort into working with the Labor government to develop the amendments. This measure fulfils the commitment made by the government to introduce any required amendments to ensure appropriate arrangements are in place for corporate funds. It will ensure that those employees whose default superannuation contributions have been directed to high-performing employer MySuper products are not made worse off by the new default superannuation system and it will prevent unnecessary disruption for employers with employer MySuper products. Applications and the assessment of applications by the expert panel and the Fair Work Commission could consider a range of factors including but not limited to the features of the superannuation arrangement and whether they best meet the interests of the employees—for example, the variations in features of generic MySuper products, such as insurance arrangements or employer scale fee discounts that benefit particular groups of employees covered under specific modern awards. The Fair Work Commission has expertise in managing issues that affect multiple employers and industries. Superannuation is an industrial issue. It always has been and it remains that way as it goes towards the remuneration of employees by employers. It is appropriate that the Fair Work Commission has a role but also that we make sure that systems that are working continue to be able to do so. This government is confident that the process will ensure reasonable and practical outcomes for all stakeholders. I commend the amendments and also acknowledge that the opposition is supporting these amendments. 10:27 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey Just very briefly, the coalition is not opposing the government's amendments, as the minister said. On behalf of the shadow minister, Senator Cormann, I make one point—that is, to reconfirm the coalition's position that we want to see genuine competition in the default fund market by letting any MySuper product compete freely. I point out that, once products comply with the default consumer protection requirements, there is no need for an additional process through Fair Work Australia. But I will not labour the chamber any longer. As I said, the coalition will not be opposing these amendments. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, be agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments. Sitting suspended from 10:29 to 11:39 Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013 6578

Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013

Second Reading 6578 11:39 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley Don't things move quickly? I would like to congratulate the Assistant Treasurer, the Flash Gordon of legislative drafting, for the turnaround time of this Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013. I emphasise measure 3 because you may recall, Deputy Speaker, it was a gripping debate. I hope the case was persuasively argued last week that the coalition were deeply unhappy with aspects of Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013. We detailed those concerns and our unhappiness and disquiet with the government's chaotic handling of that version of the bill. We moved to excise two schedules from that earlier bill in relation to changes to the Tax Agents Services Act 2009, or TASA as it is referred to around this place. Today the government is now reintroducing these two schedules in the form of a revised bill following useful, meaningful and constructive consultation with the opposition. I thank the Assistant Treasurer for that. Some of these measures are very time-sensitive and that is why there has been a very collaborative, cooperative response between the opposition and the Assistant Treasurer. I would like to recognise and praise the Assistant Treasurer for his work and also the shadow minister Senator Mathias Cormann for the way in which the offices on the different sides of the parliament have interacted. As a result of that, I suppose we could say that we had a couple of options: to do CPR on a piece of legislation whose vital signs were getting very weak, or to start afresh. We have chosen to go down the fresher pathway—and that is the bill before us that the Assistant Treasurer introduced about an hour and a half ago. Wasn't it about an hour and a half ago, Assistant Treasurer? So here we are having the debate now. We are pleased that the coalition can support the government's reforms and revisions to the bill. The government appears to have listened to the concerns that the coalition have raised and the sound reasoning behind them and have agreed to a number of the coalition's demands to amend and improve the legislation that we discussed last week. This includes an agreement with the government to extend the current exemption for financial advisers under TASA to 30 June 2014—a sensible measure, given where we are in the calendar this year; defer the implementation of proposed changes to TASA for financial advisers by 12 months to 1 July 2014; and clarify the scope of tax and financial advice changes—that is, the definition—and its interaction with the current TASA regime in the explanatory memorandum consistent with the agreement entered into between Senator Cormann and the Assistant Treasurer. Also, it explicitly exempts a series of relevant financial services in TASA's regulations 2009, which should never have been captured by the tax agent service regime in the first place. These include tax advice provided by a superannuation or pension fund pursuant to the issue of a payment summary, from advice provided showing where to report the tax information to enable a member to complete their tax return to general advice the member may rely on for entitlement and financial decisions. This also includes general advice provided by a superannuation fund's representative pursuant to intrafund advice provisions and advice provided by an insurer pursuant to payments of income protection and salary continuance insurance payments and corresponding issues of payment summary and advice therein. Also, it was a smart move to exempt advice provided by managed investment schemes pursuant to the buying and selling of registered interest, which may give rise to capital gains tax, and general advice provided therein by the responsible entity to the investor client and also other such relevant advice which may be identified in the course of consultation on that regulatory change. The coalition still have a number of concerns in relation to practical issues but not directly related to this actual legislative proposal before us. Should the coalition earn the support of the Australian public to form government at the next election, we intend to deal with a number of those issues over which we still hold serious reservations. An example of this would be making sure the operation of the legislation is consistent with the requirements under the 'best interests duty' under the Future of Financial Advice changes and a range of other issues. Based on the agreement the coalition have reached with the government, we will now support this legislation. Frankly, it should not have been this hard to impose a proper process on the government in relation to these policy changes. It just shows how proper process, consultation and collaboration can produce a far better result rather than the earlier version, which could be characterised as typically chaotic, disjointed and somewhat ham-fisted. A few weeks ago the government wanted to ram these changes through without even a parliamentary inquiry. The government also wanted to impose significant regulatory change again on the important financial services industry with fewer than two weeks to go prior to the implementation of those changes. While the government did not even want an inquiry two weeks ago, this week it has seen sense. It rolled over on sensible, necessary and non-negotiable requests from the coalition for change to the original proposal. A competent government would have seen the sense in these proposals much earlier—straightaway, in fact—but as they say, better late than never, and we have managed to get a more meaningful and constructive interaction between the various sides of the parliament. Schedule 3 of this bill seeks to add both the Australian Council of Social Service Inc., otherwise known as ACOSS, and Make a Mark Australia to the list of deductible gift recipients in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. We support these additions and, indeed, the passage of this bill through the parliament. We are encouraged by the more collaborative approach that has been adopted of late to these changes being advanced by the government. 11:46 Mr BRADBURY HVW Lindsay I thank the member for Dunkley for his contribution. I will not take issue with some of the more gratuitous contributions that he made this morning, but I do want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the cooperative way in which the government and the opposition have been able to work in relation to these matters. In particular, I wish to acknowledge Senator Cormann and his office, my office, and of course the department for the good work they have done in ensuring that some of the concerns of stakeholders have been adequately addressed. Schedule 1 ensures the consistent regulation of all forms of tax advice, whether it is provided by a tax agent, a BAS agent or an entity in the financial services industry. A sound regulatory environment gives confidence to the public about the quality of the service they receive and strengthens the integrity of the tax system. These amendments will provide certainty to the financial services industry. The commencement of the new regime from 1 July 2014 and the three-year transitional period thereafter will provide ample time for industry to prepare for the regime. Further consultation has demonstrated that no other changes were required to the amendments previously introduced, including the definition of tax financial advice. Nevertheless, the government is always happy to provide further clarity and certainty about the operation of the regime. In responding to concerns of stakeholders and, indeed, to some of the issues raised by the opposition, we believe that these matters have now been given the clarity that is necessary in order to ensure that all stakeholders have a full appreciation of any obligations that arise as a result of this legislation. Schedule 2 also amends the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 to correct a range of technical issues. Schedule 3 amends the deductible gift recipient provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Taxpayers, of course, can claim an income tax deduction for gifts to organisations that are DGRs. Schedule 3 adds two new organisations to the act—namely, the Australian Council of Social Service Inc. and Make a Mark Australia Inc. Making these organisations deductible gift recipients will assist them to attract public support for their activities and will allow them to continue to undertake the good work they already do. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. ADJOURNMENT 6581 ADJOURNMENT Legal Matter in Peru 6581 11:49 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I rise to highlight a legal case in Peru which is causing considerable distress to six young Australians: Harrison Geier, originally from Wagga Wagga, Andrew Pilat, Jessica Vo, Sam Smith and brothers, Hugh and Tom Hanlon, as well as their families and friends. In 2012 the doorman at the apartments where these young Australians were staying in Peru died, apparently as a result of a fall from an upper storey. The six were interviewed by Peruvian police, who at the time accepted their innocence. The verdict was suicide. The Australians were allowed to leave Peru and are now back in Australia. I would like to read from a letter I received from Phillip Geier, on behalf of his son Harrison, dated 29 November 2012. He stated: 'As a parent, I'm sure that, once you have read the outline of events, you will feel the same degree of disbelief and worry that this can happen to educated Australian citizens doing nothing more than checking into an apartment. As you can imagine, to be falsely accused of murder, let alone in a country with very different judicial standards, is very distressing for six lovely young Australians and their families. This awful situation is the result of the death of a doorman, Mr Lino Rodriguez Vilchez, in Miraflores, Lima, Peru, on 19 January 2012. The six young Australians had checked into their apartment and Mr Vilchez was the doorman who took their luggage to the lift. He was also at the front door when the six left to get groceries. He was not at the front door when they returned. This is the extent of their involvement with the deceased.' After agitation by the deceased's family and the local media, another police investigation was opened. This alleged that the Australians were implicated in the doorman's death. The Peruvian courts have overturned the original verdict and have ordered the six Australians to return to Peru to give statements and to face trial. The young Australians and their families are understandably concerned that the decision to open a trial does not appear to take account of forensic and other evidence which, they believe, exonerates them. The coalition welcomes the advice and assistance of the government, including our professional consular officials. We urge the Australian government to give the matter the highest priority. The coalition will continue to monitor this case very closely and hopes that, with the assistance of the government, the matter will be satisfactorily resolved, with the Australians' names cleared and no need for them to return to Peru to face trial. I spoke this morning to Rosemary Pilat, the mother of Andrew Pilat, one of the six young Australians who have unfortunately been caught up in this dreadful situation. Obviously she is very distraught about the situation, as are the families of the other five young people. I ask the government to do everything it can to see that this situation is resolved satisfactorily. It is a very worrying situation for these six young Australians, who obviously maintain their innocence. As you heard from that letter, Harrison Geier's father is also extremely worried and distraught. It is an alarming situation and I would impress upon the Commonwealth government of Australia to do everything it can to see that it is resolved satisfactorily. Radioactive Waste 6582 11:53 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I rise to update the House on the campaign against the Liberal Party's outrageous plans to dump radioactive waste in my electorate and in the electorate of Lindsay. We have spoken about this in the House before. There is radioactive waste at Hunters Hill, on Sydney's North Shore, as a result of an old factory which used radium to make medical supplies in the early part of this century. This very serious matter has been going on for a long time. Before the last state election in New South Wales the Liberal Party promised that they would not dump radioactive waste in Western Sydney. But after the election we have seen a complete change of heart from the New South Wales Liberal government. The proposal to dump 5,000 tonnes of radioactive waste at the Kemps Creek facility and also at Lidcombe in the federal electorate of Reid is something that the Liberal Party is intent on proceeding with. My colleagues the member for Lindsay, the member for Fowler and I met with Premier O'Farrell several weeks ago to put to him the concerns of our communities. He was good enough to accept the meeting and have a discussion with us about it—and I do acknowledge that. He said to us that this was a very serious issue, that people may well have died as a result of this waste and that we needed to deal with it. As we said to the Premier, that is our very point: it is a very serious issue. But for him to say that people have died and therefore this waste must be taken out of Sydney's North Shore and dumped in Western Sydney is completely unacceptable. The minister responsible for this decision was Minister Pearce. There has been a lot of talk about Minister Pearce lately—there have been calls for his dismissal—but I am not going to go there. But I tell you what: what he should be sacked for is his outrageous arrogance when it comes to the people of Western Sydney. This is what he said about Kemps Creek, in my electorate: It is 5km from the nearest housing and the area around it is not zoned for housing. This is a purpose-built facility away from everybody. I do not think he has ever been there. There is a house at the gate, with people living there—next to this facility. There are 2,309 people living in Kemps Creek. These are people. Mr Pearce seems to think they do not exist. Then there are the people of the surrounding suburbs and communities—Abbotsbury, St Clair, Erskine Park, Colyton, all concerned about this outrageous plan to dump the North Shore's radioactive waste in Western Sydney. We had a rally last week. It was convened and paid for by the member for Lindsay, in the absence of leadership from Penrith City Council and their refusal to pay for the rally against this move. There was a good crowd there, and we talked about the substance of the issue. We talked about the proposal by the federal Labor members for a feasibility study to encapsulate this waste where it is. We are not sticking our heads in the sand—we are not suggesting that nothing should be done—but there is a realistic, feasible way of dealing with this, which is to encapsulate the waste to ensure that it is appropriately stored, without using Western Sydney as a dumping ground. Some people have said, 'Why are the federal Labor MPs interested in this? This is a state matter.' It is because our Liberal state MPs are missing in action, refusing to stand up for their communities. Tania Davies and Andy Rohan have been completely absent from this discussion. Ms Davies was very vocal about this before the state election. She was out there at the site, saying this would not happen. Mr Rohan was on the Fairfield City Council. He was against this. Now, all of a sudden, because the New South Wales Liberal government has this as policy, they are struck dumb and refusing to stand up for their communities. They have sided with their party over their community. But federal Labor MPs are prepared to stand up for the community. If anybody proposes this, if a state Labor government or Liberal government in the future propose this, we will oppose it just as we are opposing it now and have opposed it in the past. And we will continue to oppose it. The Liberal Party say 'this is just soil'. Even as recently as last week, they were saying, 'It's just soil.' But, if it is just soil, why not leave it where it is? If it is just soil, why does it have to be monitored for 300 years—300 years—to ensure the risk remains acceptable? It is not an acceptable risk. Three hundred years is not acceptable as the length of time it requires monitoring. The New South Wales government should drop this plan today. I fear they are putting off making a decision until after the federal election so as not to run interference for their mates in the federal Liberal Party. We will keep this campaign going. There will be more rallies, there will be more protests and we will not rest until this plan is dead. Mining 6583 11:58 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Across the state of Queensland, mining is one of the key industries. It is certainly one of the main generators of employment in the state, either directly or indirectly. In some cases, the indirect means are still pretty direct. For instance, there are mining service companies which employ people who actually go out on the mine sites. While they are not directly employed by the mines, they classify themselves as miners. The Mackay region, including the entire electorate of Dawson, is the epicentre of the mining industry, being right on the doorstep of the Bowen Basin. Mackay prides itself on being a hub for the mining services sector. The big problem is that in the last 12 months we have seen in excess of 6,000 jobs disappear from the mining sector across the state, and it is certainly hitting home. Today I have the sad duty to report to the House that 200 jobs have been shed by Hastings Deering, one of those mining services industries. Those jobs will be cut from their Rockhampton and Mackay divisions. In recent times we have seen the shut down of the Aquila mine, another central Queensland mine operating near Moranbah, where 80 jobs were shed. Last year the Gregory mine was also closed down. Numerous mines have closed down. Almost every month we see a number of mines shut down. The impact of this on the mining services sector in Mackay is diabolical. This week the Mackay Area Industry Network, which is a chamber of commerce for the mining services industries, released a survey of their members. That survey found that 83 per cent of member companies reported a decrease in performance over the last nine months and the average decrease was 35.6 per cent. That represents a potential conservative economic loss to the sector of over $250 million. Almost a third of the businesses expected a further decline in the next six months and, alarmingly, they reported that they think about seven people per business will lose their job. That equates to the loss of almost 1,700 jobs from our region in the next six months. That is a diabolical situation. When we look at the reasons that these jobs are being shed, the top two are due to pressure from the overall downturn in the coal sector and the pricing pressure that these mining supply businesses face from the miners. In the top five is the impact from the carbon tax and in the top 10 is the impact from the mining tax. Both the carbon tax and the mining tax add to the first two reasons that I indicated—that is, the mining sector is being squeezed and therefore there is a downturn, and the mining sector is looking for price reductions from its suppliers. This is exacerbated by the campaign from the Greens which is demonising the coal industry, mining and all the hardworking miners in my electorate. I have a letter from Greenpeace in which they say civil disobedience is needed to prevent the expansion of the coal industry. They say the reason they are pushing this is that the coal industry is responsible for the deadly bushfires that ravaged Australia in January. Imagine equating the cause of bushfires with the work that people in my electorate are doing for this nation. That is despicable. That is outrageous. That combined with the policies of this government in introducing a carbon tax and a mining tax have led to the decimation of the mining industry. These policies are having real impacts and real consequences across my electorate. People are losing jobs on a weekly basis. They are not able to put food on the table and they have large debts that they cannot service anymore—all because of government policy. The rot needs to stop. We need to stop pandering to the Greens. We need to get rid of the monkey that is on the back of the mining sector and on the back of the mining services sector. Under a Liberal-National coalition government these policies will go, but I fear that the wait until the election will be far too long. Women's Rights 6584 12:03 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Today I rise to speak on the very important topic of women in conflict and peace building. As we work towards constructing peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan, I have to ask: does negotiating with the Taliban mean the rights of women, which have been so hard fought for over the length of this conflict, will be traded away in the name of peace? I know many Australians have strong views on Afghanistan and that some oppose or question our efforts. For the record, I am a supporter of our involvement in the International Security Assistance Force effort. I was a supporter when we went in all those years ago and I am an even stronger supporter now that I have been there. I was in Afghanistan in May 2011 with the defence subcommittee. I visited the just pacified Mirabad Valley and met with community leaders who welcomed the Australian presence in their country. I met with female politicians who welcomed the Australian presence in their country and I spoke to female ADF members who were engaging with Afghan women in Uruzgan province who echoed the same sentiments. We have made a difference and I hope it will be enduring, for the sake of the Australian soldiers who have sacrificed their lives, for the sake of the Afghan people, for the sake of the Middle East region and for the rest of the world. Earlier this year I met with a number of inspirational and eminent female MPs and civil society leaders who are part of a delegation organised by the Afghan Australian Development Organisation. They were here to draw attention to the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan. The women presented a number of overarching and thematic recommendations for consideration including the need for women's rights in Afghanistan to be a core priority for Australia's Security Council term; the need to make Afghanistan a priority country for the implementation and monitoring of the Australian National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security; and, the need to prioritise gender equality in AusAID's new country strategy for Afghanistan. Most importantly, the women spoke passionately and eloquently about the resilience and empowerment of Afghan women since 2002, since the presence of ISAF. Before then, no girls or women were educated. Now, more than one million girls and women are in schools. Before then, there were no women in parliament. Now, Afghanistan has about 25 per cent of women in parliament. Before then, women were not allowed to travel anywhere on their own. They had to be accompanied everywhere by a male, be it a husband, father, brother or son. They can now move freely throughout the country and the world. Before then, women were invisible and disempowered. So they implored Australia to ensure that women were involved in all negotiations with the Taliban and others in the upcoming transition and post 2014. In 2012, I was so proud that this government launched Australia's National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. This resolution is about the importance of involving women in peace building and post-conflict reconstruction. I am also very proud of the fact that this government acknowledges that the gains that have been made in Afghanistan are fragile and that we must work hard to safeguard these post transition. Women's rights are now enshrined in the Constitution but enforcing and promoting these rights and providing access to legal, health and education services remain serious challenges. The promotion and protection of human rights and the rights of women is an important feature in the comprehensive long-term partnership between Afghanistan and Australia that the Prime Minister and President Karzai signed at the Chicago summit. As Wazhma Frogh, from the Women, Peace & Security Research Institute said: Women need to be around the table, not on the menu. The global community is also looking for peace in Syria and the government is deeply concerned at the estimated death toll of 93,000 people in that nation. So I welcome the G8 leaders' seven-point statement on Syria and the commitment to push for urgent peace talks in the form of the Geneva II international conference. I reiterate that, in Syria, as in Afghanistan, women's rights must not be the cost of peace. So today I ask all of us here to think of these women and to do all we can to ensure they are not 'dinner' in post 2014 Afghanistan or in future Syria. Australia Post 6586 12:08 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I rise today to talk about a serious matter involving what is, frankly, bureaucracy at Australia Post. I am a representative of the Gold Coast, Australia's sixth largest and fastest-growing city. There are a number of unique challenges to our city which, although not exclusively unique to the Gold Coast, tend to affect my city more than most other places. I am talking, in particular, about multifloor, multi-unit dwellings and about, in this case, the refusal by Australia Post, thanks to their largely monopolistic position, to comply with the demands of customers and with my demands as the federal member for the area. My concern is about the fact that, in my electorate, I have a number of multi-apartment buildings and many of these buildings are in excess of 40, 50 and 60 floors in height. Australia Post refuses to deliver mail to residents in those buildings in a dedicated mail delivery room or indeed, in many instances, to their actual letterboxes contained within those buildings. Frankly, Australia Post's approach reeks of bureaucracy and the kind of arrogance that is consistent with a monopoly provider such as Australia Post. I have one particular building in my electorate, Circle on Cavill, which is compromised of two high-rise apartments, with a large number of local residents living there, with a dedicated mailroom on the third floor of the building complex and Australia Post will not deliver mail to the third floor. Instead, Australia Post delivers mail in bulk to the receptionist in the ground-floor lobby of the apartment building and washes its hands of it so that you have third parties effectively sorting mail and delivering mail into people's letterboxes. This is not confined to Circle on Cavill. This situation exists across many apartment high-rise buildings on the Gold Coast and in particular in my electorate of Moncrieff. The time has come for Australia Post to wake up. I am sick to death of the arrogance of Australia Post in refusing to do what is required of them. They have customers who pay their postage. Those customers expect to have mail delivered to them and not dealt with by third parties. I have even had constituents come to me gravely concerned because they have been in dispute with resident managers and, lo and behold, their mail starts disappearing. Why? Because Australia Post dumps the mail with the resident manager and says, 'That's it. We take no further responsibility for having to actually sort the mail. The resident manager can deal with it.' Yet the resident manager may be in direct dispute with the body corporate or with individual apartment owners. The simple reality is that these high-rise apartments represent suburbs in the sky. If they were all individual houses in a suburb, Australia Post would be required to deliver mail to every single one of those residences across the suburb. But, because they are in high-rise apartments, with dedicated mailbox facilities in the vast bulk of them, Australia Post will not comply with what I believe is their obligation to deliver the mail. The most galling aspect of Circle on Cavill is that, before the building was built, the developer actually consulted with Australia Post about how they should go about making the most convenient point for delivery of mail. At that stage, the developer was advised that they should have a dedicated mailroom facility, which they do and which in this particular case is on the third floor because that is a common floor to both high-rise buildings. That notwithstanding, despite years of me attempting to put pressure on the management of Australia Post, they will not deliver to the third floor for residents. They will only deliver to the ground floor and to the receptionist. When I tried to achieve an outcome in this, Australia Post's solution, reeking of arrogance and bureaucracy, was: 'Move all the letterboxes to the ground floor and put them in the lobby.' It beggars belief that Australia Post, who currently can simply pull up in their mail van on the ground floor with a dedicated elevator up to the third floor—for no other purpose than to go from the ground floor to the third floor—say they will not instruct their staff to deliver mail to residents in that building. If this ongoing arrogance from Australia Post management continues, I am absolutely of the view that one would have to question the reason they maintain a monopoly. If this monopoly gives rise to the kind of attitude that I have seen now consistently from Australia Post management, then Australia Post management needs to be brought into question. In addition to this, Australia Post will also not redirect mail for high-rise residents because they say it is too difficult for them to isolate an address—although obviously apartment addresses are not unique things; they exist across the country. Wake up, Australia Post. It is not good enough and your arrogance reeks. Pompe Disease 6587 12:13 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise today to discuss Pompe disease, a rare, progressive and fatal neuromuscular condition that affects fewer than 30 people in Australia, including north-west Sydney resident Mr Raymond Saich. Pompe disease progressively weakens the muscles until people are confined to a wheelchair and need a respirator to breathe. It is extremely rare, with an estimated incidence of one in 40,000 live births. There are two types of Pompe disease: infantile onset and late onset, often referred to as childhood, juvenile, adult or late onset. Infantile onset Pompe disease leads to cardiac and/or respiratory failure before patients reach one year of age. Children and adults who develop Pompe disease later in life will experience less rapid but relentless progression of the disease. Patients with Pompe disease are deficient in an enzyme required for the breakdown of glycogen in the cells of the body. The steady accumulation of glycogen in the body's tissues, in particular the heart muscle, leads to progressive debility, organ failure and death. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, PBAC, has previously considered submissions to fund Myozyme through the Life Saving Drugs Program for the treatment of late onset Pompe disease on six occasions—July 2008, March 2009, November 2009, November 2010, July 2011 and November 2012—and on each occasion found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that a patient's life span would be substantially extended as a direct consequence of treatment with Myozyme. As reported by Blacktown Sun editor Phyllis McGraw in 2011: Myozyme is subsidised in 44 other countries, including Britain and the US. But the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has refused to list it on the PBS Life Saving Drugs program, most recently last December, citing the low number of case studies on the effects of the drug. Australian Pompe Association President, Helen Walker, said Myozyme would be of great benefit to sufferers of Pompe disease. She said: The majority of people being treated with Myozyme experience a significant improvement in their energy levels as the drug has been proven to halt the progression of the disease … Without treatment, Pompe patients face a long and drawn out life in palliative care, wheelchair bound and on a respirator. Since Mr Saich's situation was raised with me, all avenues I have pursued have been exhausted, including taking the matter up with the minister's office and with Genzyme, the manufacturer of Myozyme. Genzyme replied to my representation on 11 June this year, and I thank them for doing so. In their response they outlined that they have provided Australian patients with charitable access to Myozyme since 2005 because: … the medical community believes in the value of our therapy and its ability to improve and extend the lives of those affected by Pompe. Currently, Genzyme treats 20 Australians with Myozyme, under the international Charitable Access Program, at a cost to Genzyme of nearly $60 million to date. Unfortunately, Genzyme cannot extend the program to any newly diagnosed children, teenagers or adults with late onset Pompe disease due to financial constraints. I am also acutely aware that the PBAC is an independent body and should remain at arm's length from politicians, but my personal view is that putting Myozyme on the PBS should remain on PBAC's agenda. People like Mr Saich depend on it. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12 : 16