2014-05-26 44 1 3 House of Reps 0 0

Monday, 26 May 2014

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 4009 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Parliament House 4009 10:01 The SPEAKER SE4 I have a statement to make this morning concerning a question that was asked on the last day of sitting last week about posters in corridors. On 15 May 2014, the member for Moreton asked me a question about the display of posters in corridors. Posters had appeared on the outside of doors to several members' suites, and the member had asked that they be taken down. Consistent with the longstanding practice, upheld by successive Speakers, that signs and posters not be permitted in the corridors or on the doors leading off the corridors, the members concerned were asked to take those posters down, at my request, and they have since been removed. It remains the prerogative of members to place material inside the internal corridor windows of their suites. Also, all members are entitled to use their suites for their own purposes, but of course not for illegal purposes. PETITIONS 4009 PETITIONS Airport Noise 4009 Age Pension 4009 Standing Orders 4010 Asylum Seekers 4010 Asylum Seekers 4010 Australian Constitution 4011 Budget 4011 Same-Sex Relationships 4011 PETITIONS 4012 PETITIONS Responses 4012 10:04 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows: Genetically Modified Crops 4012 Genetically Modified Crops 4014 Genetically Modified Crops 4016 Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 4016 Business 4017 Religion 4018 International Development Assistance 4018 Cambodia: General Election 4019 Dyslexia 4019 Human Rights 4022 Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 4022 Emissions Trading Scheme 4023 Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 4023 Climate Change 4024 Medicare 4024 Food additives 4025 Aged Care 4026 Coal Seam Gas 4026 Pensions and Benefits 4027 PETITIONS 4027 PETITIONS Statements 4027 10:05 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney The terms of the petitions and the responses will be recorded in Hansard. In my last statement to the House as Chair of the Petitions Committee, I spoke about the role and responsibility of members in petitioning. At this early stage of the 44th Parliament, it is useful to remind petitioners about the practicalities that enable them to have the benefits of the House's petitioning process. Today I will speak about the need for a principal petitioner and the rules for signatures. When the House reformed its petitioning system in 2008, it introduced the requirement for each petition to have a principal petitioner. This person is the point of contact for the Petitions Committee secretariat and so needs to place his or her full name, address and signature on the front page of the petition that is sent to the committee. These details are not published in Hansard or on the committee's website but they help the secretariat to communicate with petitioners and inform them about difficulties or, hopefully, that the petition has been found to be in order or presented or responded to by a minister. I would like to refer now to three requirements regarding signatures to petitions. As you know, Madam Speaker, members are often contacted by petitioners, and they and their staff are keen to assist them. But members cannot assist by being principal petitioners, nor can they sign petitions. Second, a person signing a petition must sign in his or her handwriting unless they are physically incapable. In that case, another person may sign on their behalf. There is no need to add an address. Third, all signatures must be original and handwritten directly on a page that contains at least the request—the words describing the action that is sought. Signatures can neither be copied, pasted, transferred or added digitally, nor placed on blank page or on the back of a sheet containing the terms of that petition. Sometimes petitioners worry when they see a signature that seems to be false. A certain cartoon character appears to support a variety of petitions to the dismay of some principal petitioners. Fortunately, it is long established practice that the whole petition is not invalidated because of this. There are more serious situations that can arise with false signatures, but they are rare. For today, I would simply commend prospective petitioners to look at the Petitions Committee's web page or to contact the secretariat for information and assistance with any of these measures. Thank you. BILLS 4028 BILLS Australian Education Amendment (School Funding Guarantee) Bill 2014 4028

Australian Education Amendment (School Funding Guarantee) Bill 2014

First Reading 4028 Second Reading 4028 10:10 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Abbott government's decisions, since being elected, to underfund the education of our children will create a permanent underclass in this country. These decisions to underfund education at the national level will divide communities. These decisions to underfund education at the national level will increase inequity and unfairness. Labor, historically and today, remains and is the best party to look after education in this country. This bill is consistent with Labor values. This bill constructively seeks to remedy the bad decisions—before too much damage is done to the educational opportunities of millions of Australian schoolchildren. The reasons why we put this bill forward are several. In part, we put this bill forward because our parliament has always taken an interest in education at the school level. In part, we put this bill forward because we already see the damage that some state jurisdictions are doing because they are not required to fund schools in the same manner in which the Commonwealth expects good state jurisdictions to do so. This bill is also more urgently required than ever, because the budget brought down a fortnight ago is nothing short of a calamity and a disaster for Australian schoolchildren, for their parents and teachers, and for people who love education in this country. It is also the case that this bill should be passed by the House, because to do otherwise is to sell the future of this country short. And, most importantly perhaps, this bill should be passed because the finest minds in education, the many parents of Australian schoolchildren, and the hardworking teachers in our schools know that unless we fund education on a needs basis, we will create an underclass in this country. Turning to the first of the reasons why this bill should be supported, and in moving this bill, we reject this latest argument of a promise-breaking and deceitful government: that somehow schools are not the responsibility in any fashion of the national government. I believe that most fair-minded Australians, when they watched the so-called Minister for Education—I would use that as a very loose term—and he said, 'It is not our responsibility to take a role in the schools of Australia,' rejected that abysmal rewriting of Australian political and education history. We acknowledge that the Constitution of Australia provides the states with a significant role and responsibility with regard to the schools of Australia. But there are many well recognised constitutional heads of power which allocate a responsibility to the federal government of Australia. Section 96 of our Constitution—and those faux conservatives on the other side who always believe in tradition seem to neglect actual constitutional history in this country—and other sections of our Constitution have been appropriately relied upon for many decades as the basis upon which the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth parliament take an interest in the schools and the children of Australia. Indeed, this year is the 50th anniversary of a 1964 piece of legislation called the States Grants (Science Laboratories and Technical Training) Act. This was a decision by the Menzies Liberal government to provide capital grants for science laboratories and equipment in secondary schools. Mr Tudge M2Y Great decision. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member opposite says 'great decision'. It is just a shame that they have forgotten their own history. In 1969 there was the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act. That was for financing library facilities—again, a federal government supporting schools. In 1972, there was the State Grants Act for broadening capital expenditure; in 1970, recurrent funding for non-government schools; in 1972-73, a Labor government ensured that there was recurrent spending for government schools; in 1974, targeted programs to assist with special education needs, professional development and, indeed, support for disadvantaged schools. Members of the House: one of the bases upon which this government seeks to reject this bill is that it says there is no role for the federal government in the funding of schools and making requirements. What a pack of hypocrites! How ignorant of their own history that they would now turn their backs on 50 years of support for government and non-government schools through the Parliament of Australia. I remind this government, who was so quick in its ideological desire to create extreme and unfair policies for this country: ignore your own history at your peril. This parliament is the custodian of the right of Australian children to have a good education. The right to a good education is now in the care of this parliament. Unless this parliament acts upon it, unless we continue to fight for the right of children to have a good education in this country, we will realise to our cost—not only to the cost of the children of Australia and their parents but to the cost of the future of this country—that the right to a good education will be more easily lost than it was won. We will fight hard to defend the right to a good education in this country. We will fight hard to ensure that we do not see the creation of a permanent underclass in this country. It is appropriate that we guard jealously the sensible use of Commonwealth funds. Since this government was elected and made its offering to pay some money to the states and territories, we have seen some states and territories take their own funding out of schools. We have seen the looting of schools in the Northern Territory by their own administration. We have seen the sacking of teachers and educational assistants in Western Australia by a state government that is freed of the leash of any requirements. What happened is that the Commonwealth government, which would hold itself up as some sort of guardian of fiscal prudential interests in decision making, wandered along to the state governments, with what the state governments could only have believed to be their good luck—and said, 'You can have the money, no strings attached.' Sorry, did I say 'no strings attached'? There is one string attached. Only a government with obsessive detail to the irrelevant and who ignores the important would say on the one hand, 'It is not our responsibility to tell states how to fund schools'—except when it comes to chaplains. Why didn't we recognise that this party is no longer the party of Menzies, no longer the party of ensuring that the Commonwealth takes an interest in the education of our children? Of course, there is always one exception to prove their complete hypocrisy. They have made it clear when it comes to school chaplains that we do not want psychologists and welfare workers who are not attached to religious organisations. The government have put this requirement to the states of Australia. They are saying on one hand that we are not going to fund you properly in the future; but, on the other hand, we will make sure that your chaplain belongs to a religious organisation. The state governments scratch their heads when they deal with this government. In this budget, which emphasises even more the need to pass this bill, we have seen the states realise what an anti-education party is this government. State Premier Campbell Newman—someone whom I am not normally in agreement with, thus proving that even a stopped clock can be right twice a day—has said: We're all in agreement that what the government is doing— that would be the Abbott-Hockey government— in relation to health and education is not acceptable. Mike Baird, perhaps not in the most elegant of prose but certainly pithily, described cuts to education in New South Wales as 'a kick in the guts to the people of New South Wales'. Victorian Premier Dennis Napthine, no doubt feeling the hot breath of an election in September on his neck, in November said of these education cuts: These are simply unaffordable and unsustainable, and those who will be affected are ordinary Australian families … This is why this bill should be supported—because we will not stand idly by and watch the education system of Australia be attacked, looted and robbed. I remind this House, in closing, that many Australians put a high value on education. Many people without money depend upon a well-funded public education system not as a luxury like Foxtel but as something that is a doorway to opportunity for their families. I commend this bill to the House. The SPEAKER SE4 Is the motion seconded? Ms Plibersek 83M I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Migration Amendment (Ending the Nation's Shame) Bill 2014 4031

Migration Amendment (Ending the Nation's Shame) Bill 2014

First Reading 4031 Second Reading 4031 10:22 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill might be better referred to simply as the 'ending the nation's shame bill'. And I say that very deliberately, because shame is a powerful word and a powerful emotion. Most people have felt it at one time or another—a feeling deep inside when we know we have done something wrong. And I think we all know that the wrong that leads to shame is often a wrong done to others. Shame is an emotion often felt in retrospect, looking back on events, despite efforts to sidestep the reality of what has been done. We try to justify our actions. We did not know. We did not see. We could not have done anything. We could not have changed the outcome. But when it comes to Australia's treatment of asylum seekers there are no such excuses. We do know. We do see. We can do something. We can change the outcome. And millions of Australians do feel shame at the actions of this and previous governments when it comes to our country's response to asylum seekers. And moreover they feel this shame keenly, shame at actions done in their name. It is time—in fact, it is way beyond time—for this government to end the nation's shame and this bill will do just that. The government has done all it can to direct the public gaze away from Australia's treatment of asylum seekers. It has shut down information and stomped all over transparency. Asylum seekers are now stopped before they reach our shores and kept out of sight, out of mind on islands in some of the most remote places imaginable. No-one is without sin here because in fact it was Labor that invented mandatory detention, tried to stitch up a deal with Malaysia and resurrected Manus Island. But it has been the Liberals who have 'perfected' the solution to the 'problem' of what they call 'illegal immigrants'. But you know what? We still see. We saw the wild waters off Christmas Island where men, women and children drowned trying to reach a safe life for their families and beliefs. We saw the riots on Manus Island that led to the death of a hopeful young man straining for a better life. We saw the pained faces of observers who tell of children in detention who have stopped speaking or who refer to themselves by number, rather than by name. And surely there is no greater shame than that done to the world's children. This government, and the previous government, believe that refugees who arrive by boat are less deserving of our help than those who can afford a plane ticket. Well they're not. This government, and the previous government, believe asylum seekers must form a queue or their asylum claim is illegal. Turns out these politicians believe we should treat some of the most vulnerable people running from terror like they are an invading force or a border threat. This bill would change all that because it ends mandatory detention, ends offshore processing and ends temporary protection visas. It also gives asylum seekers full access to Medicare, Centrelink and work rights and full access to legal support and the rights of appeal. In other words this bill makes Australia act like the rich and civilised country that we are; a place that not only signed up to the refugee convention, but also one that believes in it. This bill would end the shame. This bill would effectively end mandatory detention by imposing a 14-day limit on the time people may be held by the authorities on arrival in Australia. And if, after 14 days, there has not been a decision, then they must be released on a bridging visa. Yes, it is reasonable and sensible to make sure new arrivals are not security or health risks, but it is not fair to hold asylum seekers indefinitely or even to take so much longer than other nations to process individual requests for protection. Mandatory detention goes against everything we stand for in this country. Australia is described as a lucky country, and it is. Australia is described as a country of opportunity, and it is. Yet we throw innocent people into jail for doing nothing more than fleeing for their lives. In particular if a mother and her child spend months travelling the dangerous route to Australia, and days in the hull of a leaking boat far out to sea, then they have been in detention too long already. This bill would also shut down Nauru and Manus Island, as it should, because it is simply unconscionable to outsource our responsibilities and to wash our hands of all of the consequences of that decision. So, when those in need arrive in Australia, this bill ensures that we take responsibility, that we process people in centres that we control with accountability to the Australian people, not the governments of developing nations. This bill would also provide certainty to people arriving in Australia that if they have a valid claim for asylum, if their persecution and the danger they face in their country of origin is genuine, then they will be given protection. But not just temporary protection, which effectively imposes a long, slow torture on refugees, but permanent protection which sends a clear message to vulnerable people, and to their families, those who face the worst violations of their liberty and safety, that if they are telling the truth then they will find genuine safety here in Australia. This bill will also remedy the appalling situation whereby countless refugees are prohibited from accessing gainful employment and government services like Medicare and Centrelink. Frankly, I find it repugnant that we have an official policy to prevent some people in this country from being able to earn or learn, and which denies them any effective financial safety net. I should add, however, that at least this policy is not entirely discriminatory, seeing as the government is determined to deny a financial safety net to even its own citizens if the proposed changes to Newstart for Australians under the age of 30 are ever realised. More broadly, though, the government obviously does not believe that all are equal under the law, seeing as the manner in which a person arrives in this country determines their access to the legal framework set up to assist and protect all migrants and refugees arriving in Australia. To remedy that, this bill would ensure that there is no distinction between asylum seekers based on the circumstances of their arrival. So, if they need and are entitled to access one of the many review mechanisms available, then all will have an equal right to do so and be treated equally under the law. This bill also seeks to ensure greater transparency and, to that end, requires the minister for immigration to provide the parliament with a report every six months outlining how many people have arrived in Australia seeking our protection and how many of those the government has turned away. For too long this government has hidden behind phrases like 'operational matters' and refused to tell the parliament and the people the truth about how many people want to come here, how many they're locking up and how many they're sending back. Frankly, governments act in our name and have no right to keep secret what really are, at the end of the day, humanitarian matters. The bill has one final reform I will mention, and that is how it ensures that children who are travelling with their parents are not to be separated; not during detention and even not during any transportation that needs to occur. Quite simply there is no good reason children cannot be processed with their parents and there is no reason they would need to be apart. In other words it's quite outrageous that this government, and the previous government, allowed minors to be held in detention and transported unaccompanied, especially when they were being shipped to other countries. In closing I make the point again that Australia is a rich and fortunate place. We need to start acting like it. And I make the point again that we are actually a signatory to the refugee convention. Again, we need to start acting like it. It is time to end the nation's shame and to that end I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Is the motion seconded? Ms McGowan 123674 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 4033 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal 4033 10:32 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth I move: That this House: (1) recognises that the maintenance of safe, sustainable rates in the trucking industry is essential for ensuring community safety on our roads; and (2) calls on the Government to retain the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal intact, and not to allow profit-taking to take precedence over the reasonable safety of motorists and truck drivers. Like many Australians who understand the trucking industry, I am astounded that the government is considering abandoning the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. The link between trucking accidents and the contract conditions of owner-drivers has been established beyond reasonable doubt in report after report. We expect heavy haulage drivers to operate in a safe manner with proper fatigue management practices in place, but we know that unless owner-drivers are paid reasonable rates and are given reasonable delivery schedules the pressure will be on to cut corners to meet the high cost environments in which they operate. For many owner-drivers, many of whom I know, the stakes are very high. They mortgage their houses to buy their rigs. They cannot afford to turn down unsafe jobs. I have watched the pressure under which these truckies have operated over the last three decades. Indeed, I was in my 20s when I first learnt of the alternative meaning of the mixed grill, the cocktail of pills that is used to keep going on those punishing schedules like the Perth-Darwin run. When I became the transport minister in WA I was appalled to see that same pressure to drive too long and overload was still being applied to drivers. It was appalling to see the resistance to the chain of responsibility legislation that would have made those cost-cutting principles take some responsibility. It is all very well for Coles and Woolworths and the like to engage in cost-cutting wars, but in the end someone pays. Here it is the truck drivers and their families and, tragically, very often other road users, people like Suzanne De Beer, a very wonderful, very compassionate WA woman whose husband was killed by a fatigued truck driver. She attended the trial of that truck driver, and she had this to say: That day in court, hearing all the detail of the case and how long the guy had been on the road; my thought was he should not have been the only one on trial. You know there's the whole industry should've been on trial … that day. And indeed they should. We have made some progress. I was very pleased that in WA we were able to put in place the very first protective legislation in Australia in the Owner-Drivers (Contracts and Disputes) Act 2007. And, federally, the Labor government took this up with the establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal in 2012, establishing a mandatory minimum rate of pay and related conditions for employed and self-employed truck drivers, removing that pressure to contribute to unsafe work practices—and it has worked. It has worked. The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics has shown a 30 per cent fall in the number of fatal truck crashes involving articulated trucks over the last year. We demand that the irresponsible history of denial by the minister for transport that there is a compelling link between the terms of contracts of truck drivers and the time and cost schedules under which they are put and the safety of truck drivers be addressed. We can no longer deny this link. We need to act now. We need to ensure that that legislation which has so comprehensively been demonstrated to produce sound results is supported and not repealed. On this matter, we must take a practical, pragmatic approach, put ideology on hold and make sure that we give our truck drivers a safe working environment and that we ensure that all of our road users are not being undermined by cost-cutting, reprehensible behaviour on the part of the trucking industry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Is the motion seconded? Ms Brodtmann 30540 I second the motion. 10:37 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I too come into this place to debate the motion before us. I do not come here looking through the eyes of a union official or a Labor Party apparatchik. This is about a heavy vehicle drivers licence, so I come from having some experience of driving trucks up and down the roads. I can say as a member of the coalition that nothing concerns me more than safety on our roads, particularly the safety of those people who drive trucks and keep this country going. The electorate of Parkes has the Newell Highway traversing it from one end to the other. It is one of the largest and busiest freight corridors in Australia, so I know only too well the important role that the transport industry has and also the importance of safety. The member for Perth, I believe, is jumping the gun, probably in an attempt to gain a favour from her friends in the TWU. The coalition agreed before the election to a review of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal legislation, and as yet we are waiting for the result. I would suggest to the member for Perth that perhaps we wait and see what the review shows up, what recommendations come out of it, before we jump to too many conclusions in this place. The idea of tying the salary of truck drivers to road safety is indeed a tenuous one. I have to say that some of the items that are in this year's budget, which has just been released, around black-spot funding and increased road funding through infrastructure will also play major roles in the safety of our truck drivers. As we continue the duplication of the Pacific Highway and upgrade the Bruce Highway—and indeed, in my own backyard, create more overtaking lanes and stopping bays, properly serviced resting bays for truck drivers—that will lead to greater outcomes in road safety. Recent developments include revised health and safety laws, the introduction of modern awards, the Fair Work Commission and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. Where the legislation comes unstuck is that, when a transport operator picks up a load of cattle from a remote cattle station from, say, a part of my electorate or somewhere up in Queensland, a contract will be exchanged that goes through the Fair Work Commission. It is bureaucracy and the TWU getting their fingers on all levels of the operation. Former transport union employees have spoken against the tribunal, noting that there is 'barely a specific case study where a death is involved to support the link between rates of pay and safety'. Concerns have also been raised by those within the road transport industry that the work of the tribunal could overlap with and undermine other regulations and could impose onerous and unnecessary compliance burdens, as I just mentioned. Consistent with our commitment, the government commissioned the review shortly after the election to be conducted by Mr Rex Deighton-Smith of Jaguar Consulting, who has 25 years of experience in public policy and whose expertise includes policy research and analysis, regulatory impact assessment, competition policy and stakeholder consultation. Mr Deighton-Smith also conducted research into safety in the road transport industry for the Rudd-Gillard government. The review is focused on eliminating duplication of regulation and ensuring that regulations and policies for improving safety performance in the road transport industry are based on credible evidence. The review involves the assessment of the regulatory and economic burden of the road safety and remuneration system on participants in the road transport industry and on the Australian economy generally; examination of whether other Commonwealth, state and territory regulations and initiatives provide a more appropriate means of improving safety outcomes in the road transport industry; examination of any available evidence about the impacts of the road safety remuneration system on improving road safety—for instance, accident data; assessment of the operation and conduct of the tribunal and the extent to which it has achieved its aims and objectives; and consultation with the relevant stakeholders where necessary. This motion is premature. There is a review underway and we should wait and see what it brings up. 10:42 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to support the motion moved by the member for Perth and join her in calling on the government to retain the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal so that it can do its job to make our roads safer for all users. I note the comments by the member for Parkes and would say that I have not been here long but I have learnt one thing: defence is the best form of attack. So, yes, I too am jumping early and with good reason. Words like 'unstuck' and 'safety could be assumed to be a burden' have me on my feet today. The passing of the original legislation in 2012 was an important moment for all Australians. It sent a clear message about the then Labor government's commitment to road safety. But more than sending a message, it ensured that action would be taken to make our roads safer. It created the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, with specific powers to ensure pay and pay-related conditions for truck drivers and that they and the trucks they are driving are at their best when they are on our roads. It was introduced in response to alarming statistics in human cost. Between 2010 and 2012, around 250 people were killed and more than 1,000 suffered serious injuries on our roads in accidents involving trucks. It was the Australian industry with the highest incidence of fatal injuries, with 25 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2008-09. It was 10 times higher than the average for all industries. The legislation was passed to address specific issues: to reduce incentives for drivers to push themselves beyond what is fair, reasonable or safe to make unrealistic deadlines and a decent living; to reduce incentives to cut corners on safety and maintenance; and to make our roads safer for truck drivers and the general public. The tribunal was created to do all that was necessary to ensure that truck drivers, whether they are an employee or a self-employed owner-driver, have a safe and fair workplace, while sustaining the long-term viability of the road transport industry. The government of the day recognised the important role of small business, particularly owner-drivers, in the road transport industry. They acknowledged that the small businesses in this sector provide flexibility for businesses to meet demand for the delivery of goods, particularly in rural and regional areas. It was noted at the time of introducing the legislation that small businesses made up around 60 per cent of the road transport industry, yet they made up far less of the income earned in that industry. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal works with all stakeholders to ensure that pay and pay-related conditions encourage drivers to drive safely, to manage their hours, and to maintain their vehicles. The safety of truck drivers and of the community is paramount. When your place of work is the cabin of a prime mover, work conditions and rates of pay that allow for rest are essential for your own safety, for the security of your family and for the safety of everyone else using the road. I heard the term 'road train'—long before I saw one for the first time on the Stuart Highway in 1984—from two brothers who were owner-drivers doing interstate haulage. I was taught by those same brothers to respect trucks on the road and to understand their capacities and limitations. I understand the variation of load on the way a truck manoeuvres, and I appreciate and admire the skill of experienced drivers as much as I admire those who load and secure trucks and ensure driver safety. I understand how important sleep is for truck drivers because, as a family, we lived it. I also understand the pressures to meet the deadlines; the hours spent waiting to load and unload; the time off the road for repairs and maintenance, or because the roads are congested or flooded—and what it costs in terms of income. I understand the pressure to make the payments on the truck and to keep the business alive. I also understand the love for the work. With that, I also understand how unfair the industry can be, how cutthroat, and how an owner-driver has little time for politics, or organising, or lobbying. In my experience, there was no time for that—just the pressure to stay on the road and make a living. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was established specifically to target this, in an industry that is essential for our economy: to make that industry safer and fairer. While the economic cost is important, it is the human cost that really counts. Very few Australians have not been affected by the loss of a loved family member, a workmate or a friend in a road accident. My family is no different; except that the one we lost was an owner-driver, thrown from his prime mover on a sweeping bend. My family have lived the nightmare of the police visit with the ghastly news. It was a single-vehicle accident so we were, thankfully, spared the worst news—that others might have been killed or injured. The effect was devastating. As a society, we have changed the way we socialise to counter the damage of road accidents. We have spent millions of dollars on advertising and deterrence. I urge the government to let the tribunal get on with the job. 10:47 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to debate this private member's motion. The proposition that remuneration equates to safety is flawed. It has no basis in fact. Yet it is this flawed and unsubstantiated thinking that led to the establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not expecting you to take my word on that; rather, let us go to the government's own regulatory impact statement in 2012 on the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Amongst other things, it said, 'data at this point in time is limited and being definitive around causal link between rates and safety is difficult'. It leads me to rise to speak on this motion today on two fronts. Firstly, Barker is home to a large heavy vehicle industry. Indeed, some 2,000 of my constituents are long-haul truck drivers. The very establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal does them a disservice, because it assumes that the majority of road accidents are actually the fault of the heavy vehicle driver. That is false and does them, as I say, a great disservice. Why then did we see the establishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal into 2012? Well, it might not surprise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to learn that the Transport Workers Union have been campaigning for the introduction of so-called safe rates for a number of years, claiming that substantial wage increases for road transport drivers will have a positive effect on the safety record of the industry. Any work-related injury or fatality in the road transport industry is one too many. I speak, as did the previous speaker, from a position of personal knowledge, so it hurts me when people come into this place and use workplace safety as a cloak to mask a different agenda. Clearly, this different agenda are the claims of the Transport Workers Union. Let us call this motion for what it is—it pains me to do this. This is cheap politicking by the member for Perth. Worse, it is a further example of the opposition putting the interest of union bosses in front of the national interest. It might be that the member for Perth is looking to improve her standing, given that she was the parliamentary secretary for Western Australia during what can only be described as an outrageous defeat of the ALP in WA. I was thinking about union influence and was reminded briefly of the attempts by the Leader of the Opposition to crab walk from the influence of unions in the Labor Party and also, over the autumn recess, of the comments made by the member for Bendigo that, in fact, union bosses do not exert enough influence on the ALP. The reality is that in relation to the overall incidence rate of work related entries in the transport industry there was a 20 per cent reduction between 2002 and 2012—rates of accidents have decreased. What, then, of the coalition's position? The coalition detailed their plan in May 2013, well before the last federal election. We undertook to undertake an urgent review of the operations of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Consistent with our commitment, the government commissioned a review—that was conducted by Rex Deighton-Smith—shortly after the election. The review focused on eliminating duplication in regulation and ensuring that regulations and policies for approving safety performance in the road transport industry are based on credible evidence. The coalition government have received the review and are carefully considering it before making any decision. As I have said, the motion from the member for Perth says cheap politicking and is deeply hurtful to me. It is yet another example of the opposition putting union bosses' interests ahead of those of the nation. If the opposition were genuinely interested in ensuring the safest possible roads they would wait to see the review and examine it in a calm and methodical manner, not simply come in here and move a motion on behalf of their mates in the TWU. 10:52 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I commend the member for Perth for bringing this important motion to our attention. The government's lack of commitment to ensuring the highest level of safety on Australia's roads is of great concern, quite frankly. The government is yet to come clean on its plans for the future of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. This tribunal, bear in mind, was given the important task of establishing a safe road system based on safe rates for the Australian transport industry to ensure the safety of all road users. The tribunal should be left alone by this government and allowed to get on and do its job, which is to make our roads safer for everybody. The road transport industry is one of the deadliest in Australia, with death rates 15 times higher than the national average. Fatality rates on road freight transport doubled between 2011 and 2013, which should be of concern to everybody. It is not only the workers in the industry who are affected: out of the 330 people who die each year in truck related accidents, between 50 and 70 are truck drivers; the rest are other motorists and pedestrians. Australian truck drivers work hard to make a living, but they should not be expected to die to make a living. In addition to the loss of life, accidents involving heavy vehicles result in high economic cost to this country. Staggeringly, that cost is approaching around $2.8 billion annually. Safety standards in the road transport industry clearly have an effect on our overall road safety. When truck drivers are overworked the safety of all road users is compromised. Clearly, the financial pressures being placed on our road transport companies and in turn on truck drivers by their major clients are compromising road safety. Truck drivers and their families and other Australian road users are being squeezed to death by the overwhelming market power of big retailers, such as Coles and Woolworths, which account for 33 per cent of road freight movements each day. In 2012 an industry survey of Coles's supply chain showed that 46 per cent of drivers were pressured to skip rest breaks, 28 per cent were pressured to speed and 26 per cent were pressured to carry illegally overweight loads. Delivery schedules set by our major retailers take no account of traffic, road works or other delays and force our drivers to speed and skip rest breaks in order to meet those impossible deadlines. We know what happens if they do not meet these deadlines: they lose their contracts. It should come as no surprise that a company like Coles, which has donated more than half a million dollars to the Liberal Party since 2004, was strongly opposed to the previous Labor government's measures to strengthen the road safety system. These companies are clearly profit driven; regrettably, concerns about safety are secondary. The government cannot afford to take the same position and needs to stand firm on the side of safety. No-one wants to see people die on our roads. This government cannot afford to abandon the extensive efforts initiated by the previous Labor government to improve road safety standards throughout our transport industry. Unfortunately, those opposite have already demonstrated their priorities, when, in 2012, they opposed the construction of new rest stops and parking bays to assist heavy-vehicle drivers to improve road safety. I congratulate the Transport Workers Union—led by Tony Sheldon, who has fought long and hard to protect his members, who work in one of the deadliest industries in this country—for its important campaign, which is based on improving safety standards for all members of our community. I urge the government not to abandon the efforts of the Labor Party over the last couple of years to strengthen and support road safety by retaining the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and not to compromise the safety of transport workers and all road users. It is clear that safety measures in Australia's deadliest industry need to be strengthened, not abandoned. 10:57 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne This discussion about the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is very important for this nation. The coalition has a long history of supporting safety in the workplace, particularly in Australia's transport industry, but the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal has brought with it a lot of complexity that has not really addressed the safety issue. We all support safety on our roads. It is a given. One death on the roads is one too many. But how the so-called safe rates campaign translates into safety outcomes is not clear. Let us look at the safety record before the safe rates campaign came to fruition. In 2011, 185 people died in road-trucking accidents. One is too many, let alone 185, but if you look at the three years previous to that, before any of this came to fruition, there was overall a three per cent reduction in accidents involving articulated heavy vehicles. For heavy rigid trucks there was a 14.7 per cent reduction in accidents and fatalities. Overall, in the 10 years prior to the introduction of the tribunal there was a 20 per cent reduction in road-trucking accidents. When you look at the massive expansion of road transport in that time it is really showing a downward trend in accidents rather than an increase. What really will make a difference to road safety is better roads. In the next few years we have in front of us the biggest road-building campaign by a federal government in the history of Australian government. In the Lyne electorate the road transport industry is front and centre of all our industries. Trucks bring stuff into the electorate and take it out of the electorate. Whether it is industry taking stuff in and out of Taree or Port Macquarie or over to Gloucester, we depend on roads. And what has the coalition got for the Lyne electorate? We have $16 million on the table for the Buckets Way—long overdue—to be delivered this budget. All that road transport going between the Manning Valley and out to Gloucester and down to Newcastle will benefit from it. Look at what we have got on the Pacific Highway: $1.129 billion committed to upgrades north of the Oxley Highway intersection up to Kempsie. We have got increased money for Roads to Recovery. We have got increased money for black spot funding. Safe roads make for improved safety. The other complexity concerning the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is that as well as looking at pay rates for truckies and their conditions, it has factored them into commercial arrangements. In my particular situation, theoretically, when a cattle truck turns up to take a load of animals off to the saleyards or to the abattoirs everything should go through the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. For red tape, one only has to look at this situation. It does not make sense. We want to cut red tape and make the workplace and the arteries of our commerce and tourism safe. In the Pacific Highway upgrade we are going to get more rest stops. We are going to get separated dual-lane highway. This will lead to an increase in safety much more than using safety as a Trojan Horse for unnecessary regulation and for trade unions to be involved in commercial arrangements between customer and provider. We all support road safety and our initiative is going to achieve much more of that than trade unions being involved in commercial arrangements that are not part of the deal. So I think a long-term commitment to improving the transport infrastructure will be a great outcome for people in the trucking industry, for the tourists and for all those family members that have been affected by accidents on the roads. (Time expired) 11:02 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise in support of the motion and I want to thank my colleague the member for Perth for bringing it to the attention of the House. This is not the first time I have spoken on this issue in the parliament and, in fact, it is something I alluded to even in my first speech in this place. I recognise that truck drivers play a vital role in Australia's economy. In a country so large, they are essential in keeping our industries alive and putting food on our supermarket shelves. They are some of the hardest-working people I have ever met, and anyone in this place is probably ever likely to meet either. But we also know that the unrealistic deadlines that are still placed on truck drivers squeeze them for every dollar they earn and can tragically even cost them their lives and the lives of others. The pressures that too many truck drivers are forced to perform under have made truck driving one of the most dangerous industries in our country with a workplace fatality rate of truck drivers 10 times the industrial average. I am privileged to represent around 1,500 professional drivers in my electorate of Greenway. My constituents, these truck drivers, often risk their lives each day when they go to work just so they can support themselves and their families. That is why the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was established—to make sure that these people, just like the ones who live in my electorate, are treated with the respect they deserve. The first order of the tribunal came into effect on 1 May. Essentially, this important order sets out minimum entitlements and requirements for certain road transport drivers, their employers or hirers, and those drivers in the supply chain. This covers drivers who transport any good or material destined for sale or hire by a supermarket chain, and long-distance drivers. This includes requirements regarding safe driving plans for long-distance drivers, work health and safety training, written contracts for drivers and payment requirements for payers. This order is essential to achieving safety and fairness in the road transport industry. For an industry that is expected to grow by 73,000 over the next five years, far exceeding workforce growth in many other parts of the economy, these safety provisions are more important now than ever. This issue is one very close to my heart. My late campaign director in Greenway, Blacktown resident and ex-truck driver of 45 years, Mr Brian Thomas, was a strong advocate for the safety of truck drivers. He often told me about his own experiences and the immense dangers that all truck drivers face because of the time pressures and the often impossible targets that are enforced. These dangers are the reason that the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was established and why it should be retained by this government. One of my friends from the 43rd Parliament, the former member for Hinkler, was a strong advocate for the safety of truckies on our roads. I am dismayed by the way in which some of the speakers in this debate fail to respect and uphold his grounded and concerned views. On repeal day, the so-called Regulatory Repeal Day, the tribunal was called 'just another bit of red tape'. I heard the previous speaker talk about road infrastructure and how that will be a key part of truck driver safety. Truck driver safety is not just about infrastructure; it is not just about roads. You can have the best road in the world, but a driver—as the member for Perth mentioned—on the deadly cocktail to help them stay awake is not safe. The best road in the world is not going to save that truck driver or people around him. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is not just another piece of red tape. Any industrial accident is one accident too many. The tribunal exists to ensure fairness for working families. It is there to ensure that women and children in my electorate have a husband and a father who leaves at the beginning of the day and returns safely at the end of it. That is not extra bureaucracy; it is a demonstration of inherent decency and responsible governance. On this issue, I highlight that in the Senate on 11 December Senator John Williams did call it another piece of red tape when he was talking about the draft road safety remuneration order. He said: What I am getting to is red tape and paperwork that will not achieve anything. It will not provide safety and will be of no benefit. I dispute that entirely. I also point to this fact, as the former Minister Albanese highlighted in March 2012 when the tribunal was established: Road accidents involving heavy vehicles cost our economy an estimated $2.7 billion a year, but the cost to victim's families can't be measured. If saving that amount of money is red tape, then I put it to this parliament that we should be doing everything we can not only to save that amount of money but to save lives. 11:07 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee Can I just say how great it is to be in the chamber after a wonderful week away talking to the people across the electorate. And my electorate is an electorate that understands the trucking industry. Unfortunately, for a very long time our rail has been let go. We have not spent or invested enough in rail as a country. But it does mean that we have been using trucks. And we do have the advantage of trucks. As a truck owner myself, and as someone who has a heavy combination licence, I do understand the trucking industry. I have used it to transport grain, wool and many products that we produce on our farm to the market. Across our electorate, we produce $5.3 billion worth of exportable commodities. That is quite a large amount of stuff. But the thing that is driving safety is not so much the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal; it is improving roads. That is really what our focus should be. I do not have a problem per se with this attempt to move a motion in the House, except that we have conducted a review and the appropriate way to do governance is to look at things thoroughly. Information creates good policy, and when we want to grandstand on an issue, such as moving a motion like this before the results of that review have been released, you get the feeling that we are not actually allowing good information to create good policy. Our trucking industry is important. But what is also very important is that our trucking industry is profitable. People get good wages when the business is profitable. And when you have profitable businesses they also invest significantly in newer trucks: those trucks have better braking capacity, they have airbags on their trailers and they have the capacity to be safer. My great concern with this motion is that it is attempting to hold up something, such as the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which may be under the guise of a pay discussion rather than the guise of the safety discussion. Let us have our review, let us have our findings and let us then make a decision. The review involves assessment of the regulatory and economic burden of the road safety remuneration system on participants in the road transport industry and the Australian economy generally. It is an examination of whether other Commonwealth, state and territory regulations and initiatives provide a more appropriate means of improving safety outcomes in the road transport industry; it is an examination of any available evidence about the impacts of the road safety remuneration system on improving road safety; it is an assessment of the operation and conduct of the tribunal and the extent to which it has achieved its aims and objectives; and it is a consultation with the relevant stakeholders as necessary. The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal has been running for a little bit of time, and so it is appropriate that we see the findings of that review. And seeing those findings will ultimately create a good outcome. The previous speaker mentioned the 'deadly cocktails to stay awake'. Can I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, that the laws around drugs, or even having any drug in the cabin of a truck, are very strict. We are not removing 'deadly cocktails to stay awake' by paying truck drivers more as a result of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal; we are actually removing those drugs by very strong laws and very strong policing. That has been something that our truck drivers have been very involved with, and taken great ownership of. In fact, mass management is something that our trucking industry and our small businesses have welcomed. It is the ability for a trucking business, provided that they do good record keeping and have really good maintenance, to be able to carry a little bit more on our roads. Things like that have really reaped great benefits, and they are the sorts of things we should be looking at. As I come to my conclusion, can I say that our government is very committed to safe roads. I think everyone in this House is committed to safe roads. As a CFA member, I have spent all night holding onto a fire hose from a fire truck at fatalities. I do know how traumatic it is for the family involved. But the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal is having a review. We should let the review run its course, and then we will have the findings of the review before we have a debate about trying to say how good it is before the review has had a chance to hand down its findings. Debate adjourned. Nigeria 4043 11:13 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane I move: That this House: (1) notes Australia's condemnation of the group responsible for the abduction of more than 200 school girls from Chibok in Borno State, Nigeria, and deep concern at reports of further abductions in north eastern Nigeria; and (2) acknowledges that: (a) the Australian government has made contact with the Nigerian High Commission in Canberra and the Nigerian government in Abuja to express concern; (b) Australia:    (i) is working with Nigeria on counter-terrorism to prevent attacks including the recent bombings that took place in Abuja and these abductions;    (ii) has joined other members of the United Nations Security Council in condemning in the strongest terms the recent attacks committed by Boko Haram; and    (iii) is strongly committed to empowering women and girls socially, politically and economically, by ending violence against women and girls, and improving access to health care and education; and (c) the Australian government continues to advise Australians to reconsider their need to travel to Nigeria given the high threat of terrorist attack and kidnapping. On 14 April this year more than 200 girls were abducted from a boarding school in Borno State in northern Nigeria. Regrettably, there have also been reports of further abductions in north-eastern Nigeria. On 5 May, the group known as Boko Haram claimed responsibility for the abductions. While some of the girls have managed to escape, the majority of the initial group is still being held and Boko Haram has threatened to sell the girls into slavery. Additional reports indicate that 11 more girls were abducted from Warabe, another village in Borno State, on 5 May 2014 by suspected Boko Haram gunmen. On 12 May a video released by Boko Haram showed more than 100 abducted girls, claiming that many had been converting to Islam. A person claiming to be the Boko Haram leader has offered to release the girls in exchange for all Boko Haram prisoners held by Nigeria. No-one should be under any illusion that these abductions are anything other than acts of terrorism and the lowest form of cowardice and thuggery. In a country such as ours it is really difficult to conceptualise barbaric acts such as these, but I ask every member of this place to be mindful of the fact that every single one of these girls is someone's daughter, sister, cousin or friend. Every one of these girls has exactly the same right as any girl in Australia to live free of any oppression. For this reason, if no other, we must speak out against such atrocities. This motion informs the House of Australia's response to this crisis thus far. The Australian government is deeply concerned for the welfare of more than 200 schoolchildren who were abducted. On 6 May the Hon. Julie Bishop, Minister for Foreign Affairs, issued a statement condemning Boko Haram. The minister expressed outrage at the threats against the welfare of these girls and pledged Australia's ongoing support to Nigeria on counter-terrorism. Australia has offered support to the Nigerian government through the Australian Ambassador for Counter-Terrorism, Miles Armitage, and Australia's High Commissioner to Nigeria, Jon Richardson. Australia welcomes the support pledged to Nigeria by the international community and will continue to work with the Nigerian government. Nigeria has welcomed Australia's support and we will continue to cooperate on counter-terrorism to prevent such attacks as this. In this regard it should also be noted that Australia and Nigeria are founding members of the Global Counter Terrorism Forum. Past cooperation on counter-terrorism between Australia and Nigeria includes: in April 2014 Australia's, now former, CT ambassador attended the GCTF Sahel Working Group meeting in Morocco; and in March 2013 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade facilitated the visit to Australia by officials from Nigeria's Office of the National Security Adviser to learn about Australia's programs, including radicalisation in prisons. In 2013 DFAT contributed $30,000 to the UN Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force for a workshop for Nigerian law enforcement officers on preventing and countering radicalisation and in June 2012 DFAT contributed US$31,000 to the International Organization for Migration to help fund a workshop on strengthening border management. Australia joined other members of the United Nations Security Council on 14 April and 9 May 2014 in condemning in the strongest terms the attacks committed by the terrorist organisation Boko Haram. The United Nations Security Council's committee on al-Qaeda sanctions has blacklisted Boko Haram, with the entry describing Boko Haram as an affiliate of al-Qaeda and the Organisation of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. By adding Boko Haram to the United Nation's resolution 1267 al-Qaeda sanctions list, the UN Security Council has helped close off important avenues of funding, travel and weapons to Boko Haram and shown global unity against their savage actions. In addition, the Prime Minister announced on 14 May that Australia was moving urgently to commence the process of listing Boko Haram as a terrorist organisation. I note that this announcement was welcomed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Australian government also continues to advise Australians to reconsider their need to travel to Nigeria, given the very high level of threat of terrorist attacks and kidnapping. Regrettably, the pace of attacks by Boko Haram has escalated over the past few weeks. Recent attacks include: two car bombs detonated in a crowded marketplace in the city of Jos on 20 May 2014, killing at least 118 people and wounding dozens; a suicide car bombing on a popular street of restaurants and bars in the northern city of Kano on 18 May 2014, killing four; and the bombing of two bridges linking Borno state with neighbouring Adamawa state on 10 May 2014 and Cameroon on 8 May 2014. Press reporting speculates that these bombings were designed to hinder access by security forces. There was also an attack on Gamboru Ngala, a village on Nigeria's border with Cameroon, on 5 May 2014, causing at least 300 deaths, and bombings in Abuja on 1 May and 14 April 2014, killing 19 and 71 people respectively and injuring dozens more. In terms of the Nigerian and international responses, on 4 May 2014 Nigeria's President, Goodluck Jonathan, directed Nigeria's security agencies to intensify efforts to rescue the schoolgirls. The Nigerian police have also offered a reward of 50 million naira—approximately $300,000—for information to rescue the girls. On 9 to 10 May the United States deployed a team to Nigeria that included State Department, FBI and Defense Department officials to assist with investigations, negotiations, intelligence and military planning. The US has confirmed it is flying manned surveillance aircraft over Nigeria and sharing commercial satellite imagery. The US team has been joined by teams of experts from France and Israel and a cross-agency team from the United Kingdom that includes officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the defence department and the Department for International Development. Canada has agreed to provide surveillance equipment operated by Canadians on the ground in Nigeria to assist. According to media reports, China has also agreed to make available information acquired by its satellites and intelligence services. In addition, Said Djinnit, appointed High-Level Representative of the UN Secretary-General to Nigeria, met President Jonathan on 15 May 2014 to discuss the United Nations' role in supporting efforts to return the abducted schoolgirls. It is clear that the international community has also rallied against Boko Haram. It is most significant that, at the Paris Summit for Security in Nigeria hosted by French President Francois Hollande on Saturday 17 May, the presidents of Cameroon and Chad were both quoted in the media as saying that the summit represented a declaration of war on Boko Haram. These specific responses to the abhorrent actions of Boko Haram are part of a wider raft of actions being undertaken by the international community in addressing sexual violence against women and girls in areas of conflict. To this end the Australian Ambassador for Women and Girls, Natasha Stott-Despoja, will address Australia's approach to preventing and responding to a full range of sexually-violent acts at the upcoming Global Summit to End Sexual Violence In Conflict which will take place in London from 10 to 13 June. Finally, while all of this information updates the House on the response of Australia and the international community, as the mother of a daughter myself I would like to offer my prayers to the girls' families and their loved ones. I cannot imagine the pain and anguish they are going through. My heart goes out to them and I pray for the girls' safe return. 11:23 The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Is the motion seconded? 11:23 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I second the motion. Last month, on 14 April, more than 300 girls were abducted in the middle of the night from the safety of their beds by armed men. Exactly six weeks have now passed and 276 of these children remain in captivity. The whole world has watched with great concern, hoping with each passing day for news of the girls' safe return. As the member for Brisbane said, any parent who has been watching this can imagine their own daughter in the place of those girls. We can only imagine the depth of the girls' terror and the parents' grief. Michelle Obama captured the sentiment of many parents watching on Mother's Day when she said: In these girls, Barack and I see our own daughters. We see their hopes, their dreams … These girls embody the best hope for the future of our world … and we are committed to standing up for them not just in times of tragedy or crisis, but for the long haul. That long haul includes a commitment from wealthy countries like Australia to play our role in the global community and that means a robust aid program—the first step towards standing up for these girls. Aid makes a very real and measurable difference in the world's ability to educate girls. The member for Brisbane spoke very properly about investment in counter-terrorism measures in 2010, 2011 and 2012 and that is, of course, very important. But aid does something else: it builds safer and more equal societies that counteract movements like Boko Haram. Frankly, it builds the schools for these girls to attend. Prior to these aid cuts, for example, in 2012-13, the Australian aid program in Africa increased the provision of basic sanitation for 12,000 schoolchildren. It provided over 5.6 million vulnerable people with life-saving assistance in conflict and crisis situations. It resulted in an increased income for 94,000 people, including 31,000 women, and it provided more than 100,000 women with increased access to safe water. Aid matters. Unfortunately last December Ms Gambaro, the member for Brisbane, was complaining about Australian aid in Africa. She said: I specifically stated that the coalition was really concerned about the large amount of funding going to the Middle East and Africa. And: … an enormous amount of money was skewed. Between 2007 and 2008, there was also a 251 per cent increase in spending in Africa, from $111 million-$354 million. To be, on the one hand, worried about these girls and, on the other hand, to undermine our ability as a country to build the schools that the girls attend and to lift people out of poverty! It is poverty that drives these organisations; poverty is a recruitment drive for organisations like Boko Haram. This motion states that a strong commitment 'to empowering women and girls socially, politically and economically' is important; but you cannot talk about that in the abstract and then cut the means of delivering that empowerment. Australian aid has seen seven million extra children and over three million girls go to school in Afghanistan. Australian aid built or extended 2,000 schools in Indonesia, creating around 330,000 extra school places. Australian aid made schools free for the first three grades of school in Papua New Guinea, which enabled more than 535,000 children to access free education. We know, when families are making a decision about whether to educate their daughters or their sons, they always prioritise their sons. Think about the girls who are going to school because of this investment in free schooling. Under Labor the aid program was on track to reach 0.5 per cent of gross national income. That target was set during the Howard government years. Overseas aid increased every year under the federal Labor government, almost doubling under our time in government; yet in this budget the coalition has cut $7.6 billion from aid, stripped the program of transparency and removed long-term targets. The $7.6 billion cut would pay for 25 million people to learn to read and write; it would pay for 1.5 billion life-saving malaria treatments; it would pay for antiretroviral treatment for 10 million people with HIV-AIDS; or it would train three million new midwives. The Australian aid cut to Africa is one of the most devastating. This financial year alone more than $90 million has been cut from sub-Saharan African aid programs. Our aid dollars go a very long way in Africa. Aid in Africa builds better and safer lives for women and girls. Aid ensures that girls can go to school, stay in school and feel safe in school. As our government is pulling back from a robust aid program and slashing aid to Africa, the rest of the world is becoming increasingly optimistic about what we can achieve when we make a commitment to ending poverty in developing countries. Last year, the development committee of the World Bank set the goal of ending extreme poverty by the year 2030. More recently, the United Nations General Assembly working group on global goals concluded that: Eradicating extreme poverty in a generation is an ambitious but feasible goal. The world has a historic opportunity to end extreme poverty in a generation. The UN Secretary-General's Special Adviser on the Millennium Development Goals, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who I met last week, firmly believes that aid can end poverty and he argues: Only through global cooperation can individual nations overcome the crisis of extreme poverty, economic instability, social inequality and environmental degradation. The MDGs have been an essential step towards ending poverty. They have been the most effective global poverty alleviation projects in the history of humanity. The next development agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals, will be adopted at a world summit at the UN in September 2015. These will be important progress in the continued commitment that all of us should share to ending extreme poverty. Africa will continue to be a major focus of the world's fight against poverty. Since the 1950s, Africa's population has increased from fewer than 230 million people to over one billion. Today over 70 per cent of sub-Saharan Africa still lives on less than US$2 a day and, as estimated by Robert Rotberg, half of all the people in the world born from now until 2050 will be African. Despite the persistence of poverty and the daunting continued population growth, many conditions and development indicators in Africa have improved in recent decades. Child mortality in Africa has declined from 229 per 1,000 births in 1970 to 146 per 1,000 births in 2007. Indeed, worldwide 14,000 fewer children died in 2011 than in 1990. So, despite the growth in the world population, 14,000 fewer people died in 2011 compared to in 1990. Adult literacy in Africa has increased from around 27 per cent in 1970 to around 62 per cent in 2007. Primary school net enrolments have increased from around 53 per cent in 1991 to around 70 per cent in 2007. So aid is working and the economic development that has come with aid has lifted millions out of extreme poverty. While the aid we have already given has made a difference, the need is still great and aid still needs to be more targeted. Professor Sachs explained: … the record shows that Africa has long been struggling with rural poverty, tropical diseases, illiteracy, and lack of infrastructure, the right solution is to help address these critical needs through transparent and targeted public and private investments. This includes both more aid and more market financing. It is in that vein that I call on the government to reverse the cuts to Australian aid. We are a prosperous and a generous nation. Our national identity and our place in the world are defined by many things. Our willingness to contribute generously to aid is one of those. On top of that our aid program is also in our national interest. Countries like China and South Korea that used to receive Australian aid dollars are now major trading partners. I have to finish by saying that every one of us in this place is concerned beyond words for the interests of these girls who have been kidnapped by Boko Haram. But when we refuse to invest in education in Africa—preventing girls just like them from getting safe schooling, preventing girls just like them from accessing health care and midwives—then we are able to be accused very easily of being easy with the empty words but very short on follow-through. 11:33 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I think it is a real shame that the member for Sydney did not actually address the substance of the motion but instead gave a bizarre speech about how Australian foreign aid would somehow have stopped these poor schoolchildren in Nigeria being abducted by a proscribed terrorist organisation. I also think it is a real shame that the member for Sydney did not address the substance of this private member's motion on Nigeria but instead talked about foreign aid and yet failed to talk about Labor's lack of credibility on foreign aid when it came to spending foreign aid dollars on an attempt to secure a seat on the Security Council and their diversion of foreign aid for unauthorised boat arrivals—more than 50,000—and their diversion of foreign aid to try to prop up their budget in other ways. I rise today to speak on the motion that reflects our outrage at the abduction of more than 200 girls from a Nigerian school. This heinous act was perpetrated by the Islamic terrorist organisation Boko Haram, the primary subject of this motion. We are appalled by the thought of these girls being deprived of their liberty, being compelled to change religions and being driven into involuntary marriages with strangers and by the prospect of them being sold into slavery. Our hearts go out to their families, who must be experiencing appalling emotional pain. Regrettably, this is only one of many repugnant acts perpetrated by this group. This is far from the first abduction committed by Boko Haram, which is also guilty of bombings, murders and rapes. Included in their list of crimes is a wave of bombings in 2012 that killed more than 180 people and this year, on 14 April and 1 May, Boko Haram car bombs in Abjura killed at least 90 people. One of the latest insurgent attacks on the town of Gamboru Ngala has left at least 300 dead and Boko Haram are also suspected of a bombing in a marketplace that killed around 120 people just last Tuesday. The need to address the situation is clear, with the US Congressional Research Service estimating that more than 4,000 people have been killed in the violence and that 300,000 have been displaced. Boko Haram have two major aims: to implement sharia, Islamic law, in Nigeria and to oppose the secular westernisation of the country. This means they are particularly opposed to education, as is reflected in their name, which translates to 'Western education is sinful'. So Boko Haram targets students studying a Western style curriculum, girls who are at school, Christian communities and in particular Christian women. According to a 2013 study for Nigeria's Political Violence Research Network, 45 per cent of those killed by Boko Haram are Christian women and children. Indeed, attacks on women and young people have clearly become part of their modus operandi as well as attacks on government buildings, police barracks, churches and mosques. The willingness of the Australian government to act against this terrorist group is evident in the press release issued by the Prime Minister with Senator George Brandis, the Attorney-General, moving to list Boko Haram as a terrorist organisation. This motion continues in the spirit of that earlier announcement in condemning the abduction of those schoolgirls from Chibok in Nigeria. It recognises our willingness to provide active counter-terrorism support to Nigeria as it strives to free itself from Boko Haram's brutality. In providing such practical support we are joining Britain, France, the European Union and the United States of America. We are also acting consistently with the United Nations Security Council, which, last week, added Boko Haram to the list of al-Qaeda linked organisations. This means that sanctions such as asset freezes and an arms embargo now apply. This motion and our support are both consistent with Australia's strong stand internationally against terrorism and our commitment to ending violence against women and girls. It is further consistent with our determination to support the economic and political empowerment of women and girls. These are objectives to which Boko Haram are clearly opposed given their willingness to attack schoolgirls at their places of learning. I urge you to voice your repulsion at the criminal actions of Boko Haram and show your support for the Nigerian people by supporting this motion. In the time available I also wish to add my heartfelt concern for the families who are clearly missing their loved ones; I hope for their very safe and speedy return. 11:38 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra In rising, I would like to commend the member for Brisbane for putting this motion on Nigeria forward. I have said in this place again and again that education is the great equaliser, the great transformer. It is through education that my sisters and I escaped a cycle of disadvantage. Education, and especially the education of women, is the bedrock of development. Education gives women options and control; it gives them choice. That is why the abduction of over 200 innocent Nigerian schoolgirls is so abhorrent. These young girls were targeted simply because they dared to seek an education, because they dared to improve their lives, and the lives of their families. The name of the perpetrators of this hateful act, Boko Haram, literally means 'Western style education is sin'. This terrorist organisation seeks to prevent the people of Nigeria from seeking an education, and to punish those who do. I have been alarmed to learn that since this brutal abduction, teachers and members of the education community in Nigeria have been living in fear. Education unions in Nigeria have reported their fears that teacher recruitment will decrease to an all-time low because people are now simply too afraid to enter this most worthy and this most meaningful of professions. I fear too that school enrolment and attendance in Nigeria will be dramatically affected by this abduction. This abduction is not just an attack on these girls and their families but also an attack on every person in this world who believes that the right to education is a fundamental human right. This morning about 50 girls from Girls Grammar School here in Canberra visited parliament, and I spoke briefly to them about this horrific abduction. In doing so, I wanted to imply how lucky they are as young women to have unhindered access to a good quality education. It is not just in Nigeria where the right of young women to access education is being threatened. Across the world millions of children and adults remain deprived of educational opportunities, some as a result of conflict, some as a result of oppression, many as a result of poverty, and some, like these Nigerian schoolgirls, as a result of fundamentalist ideology. According to the International Labour Organisation, of the 72 million primary school aged children not at school, 44 million are girls. That is 16 million more girls out of school than boys. I have spoken in this place before about my very great fear that the ability for women to access education in Afghanistan may regress after the withdrawal of Australian troops and the troops of our ISAF partners. Enormous progress has been made in improving girls' access to education in Afghanistan over the last 11 years. Today, millions of Afghan girls and boys are now going to school. Many women now have access to education, to employment, to basic health care and to other essential services that previously were off limits to them. However, without constant vigilance these gains will easily be lost. We know too that in Syria conflict has prevented a generation of girls and boys from accessing education for much of the past three years. Education is not just a fundamental human right, it is also essential for the exercise of all other human rights. The international community, including Australia, must stand together to protect the right to education for all girls and boys in this world. The international community, including Australia, must do what we can to ensure the urgent return of these abducted Nigerian schoolgirls. Inaction and complacency will only send the message that attacking the right to education is okay. Inaction will cause more Nigerian teachers to withdraw from the profession out of fear and more Nigerian parents to pull their children out of school. Today I stand with the teachers, unions and educators of Nigeria who have said they will not stop campaigning 'until our girls are brought back safe and alive and the perpetrators of the heinous crime are brought to book'. Today I stand with the parents and loved ones of these girls, who will not rest until their daughters are returned safely. Today I commit to do all that I can to ensure the fundamental right to education—the fundamental human right to education—for all is upheld the world over. We cannot have a situation where fear prevents children from accessing education. Bring back our girls. 11:43 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra First, I congratulate the member for Brisbane for this raising this private members' motion on Nigeria. I also commend the member for Canberra. This is a very important debate, and hers was an admirable speech. I thank the opposition for seconding the motion, but I do not thank the seconder for her speech. It was absolutely appalling on a matter of such sensitivity to make it a speech about alleged cutbacks in relation to foreign aid—and then to leave in the way in which she did disappointed me enormously. I regard this matter as a matter that impacts upon us all. It is not a women's issue, it is not an issue for girls; it is an issue for us all. It is very important that we understand the nature of what is occurring here, and I want to put it in context first. This is an extremist organisation that happens to be Islamic. I do not blame all Muslims for an extremist organisation, but I am going to say something about the organisation, because it is abhorrent. But it is clear that Muslims generally are law-abiding, respectful people, as much concerned as all of us about what is happening. This motion deals with the condemnation of the group responsible for the abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls in northern Nigeria and reports that further abductions are planned. It acknowledges what we here in Australia have done and the way in which we are working on counter-terrorism; that we have joined with other members of the UN Security Council; that we are committed to empowering women and girls socially, politically and economically by ending violence against women and girls; and that the government continues to advise Australians about the need for caution. Since this motion was first proposed we have now moved to proscribe this body, Boko Haram, as a terrorist organisation. This organisation's aim is to revive a medieval Islamic state in modern Nigeria. The country has 170 million people and it is split roughly between Christians and Muslims. Boko Haram's origins stem from several militant Islamic groups which formed in Nigeria; they were originally referred to as the 'Nigerian Taliban'. There is no suggestion that they are linked to the Taliban, but it is the case that this organisation, initially formed in 1995 by Abubakar Lawan, was overtaken when the shura, their council or scholars, elected Mohammad Yusuf is its leader. He ousted others and gave it a much more radical profile. He accused those who had been before as being corrupt in not preaching pure Islam. The group became operationally active in December 2003 and operate under the name Boko Haram, meaning 'Western civilisation is sinful and forbidden' in the local Hausa dialect. It is estimated in the last five years that it has murdered over 4,000 people—and, of course, now has kidnapped this large number of students. It has inflicted on Nigeria a very, very unfortunate outcome, and it is something that the world community needs to respond to and to support Nigeria as it endeavours to work this matter through. I welcome the fact that the UN has been active in relation to this matter—it has also proscribed the organisation as a terrorist body—and I welcome the fact that other governments have been active in supporting Nigeria in the way forward, and particularly to look at how they can use the information they receive about terrorism to help. Nigeria needs help and support at this time and Australia is very active in relation to it. I think it is appropriate that the parliament should support this motion moved by the member for Brisbane, which properly draws our attention to this very significant question. 11:48 Mr GRIFFIN VU5 Bruce I also rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Brisbane and join with her and many other colleagues in the condemnation of Boko Haram with respect to the kidnapping of these young girls and for the ongoing acts of violence carried out in Africa's most populated nation, Nigeria. I welcome the efforts of the government in seeking to have Boko Haram listed as a terrorist organisation and, similarly, applaud the United Nations Security Council for its condemnation of the group. I also join the member in acknowledging the importance of having a major focus on the empowerment of women as part of Australia's aid program. As other speakers have mentioned, the Arabic name Boko Haram is a term which suggests 'Western education is forbidden or sinful'. This extremist group is an immediate threat to the stability, security and sovereignty of Nigeria, especially in the nation's northernmost provinces, as a result of numerous high-profile attacks on targets from mosques and churches to schools and political offices. The group has preyed on the most vulnerable amongst Nigeria's Muslim communities, including university students, the unemployed and street children, warping the teachings of the Koran to attract recruits to carry out crimes and violent acts, all in the hope that Boko Haram could create an Islamist state which upholds sharia law. It is another unfortunate example of an extremist group giving a bad name to Islam as they manipulate the religion's messages to justify Boko Haram's indefensible and disgusting crimes that it carries out. Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for countless acts of terror, resulting in thousands of deaths since the group's inception over a decade ago. This kidnapping of more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls is one of the most recent acts of terror they have committed. Boko Haram has also been responsible for many drive-by murders; bombings of churches and mosques of other Muslim traditions; and even a bombing of the UN headquarters in the nation's capital, Abuja. The chair of the al-Qaeda sanction committee, Australia's UN Ambassador, Gary Quinlan, said the international body had very clear evidence that members of the Nigeria based group had trained with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. There is no doubt that what we are debating here today, and, I am hoping, uniting the parliament, is around the question of condemning a horrific act of terrorism—horrific in terms of the fact that it also actually targets the most fragile in the community. All of us are in a situation where we look at this tragedy and wish the authorities all speed and all power to be able to rescue these kids and give them a chance to actually have a decent life. The fact that they were engaged in an education, something that we would all view as being a fundamental right of all people to have an education, that they would be targeted in this way, underlines the very heinous nature of this group and the way it operates. When we look at poverty around the world we do know that women and girls in particular are in a situation where they often bear the brunt. That is why it is important that aid programs recognise that and look to provide support when they can. Statistics from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade suggest: two-thirds of the 774 million illiterate adults worldwide are women; women make up just over 19 per cent of parliamentarians worldwide but only 2.3 per cent in Pacific countries; women farmers produce more than half the world's food and between 60 to 80 per cent in developing countries, but have far less access to land and resources than male farmers; and one in three women experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. So ensuring that we have an aid program which takes the needs of women into account is essential and it needs to be on an ongoing basis in our program. With respect to the circumstances around this particular tragedy, I join with all others in encouraging those who are working to catch these criminals and free these children all speed and all power. The support of the international community to the authorities in Nigeria is therefore essential. The actions of governments in providing support from across the world are part of what is required to ensure that this organisation is dealt with and dealt with professionally, efficiently and, frankly, in the way they behaved, ruthlessly. The needs of these children are indicative of the needs of those in developing countries, and the needs of women in developing countries are something that need to be— (Time expired) 11:53 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to support this motion and in so doing congratulate the member for Brisbane for bringing this issue onto the formal agenda of our parliament. Freedom to learn is a fundamental right that must be afforded to all. In Australia, we often take for granted the ease with which our children access education. Education is seen as a fact of life, available to all—no fuss, no questions. Across the world, however, this is not always the case. Access to school and to an education for many women, even in an economically booming country such as Nigeria, has seen women face many challenges in order to obtain equal education to men. A positive correlation exists between the enrolment of girls in primary school and the gross national product and increase of life expectancy. It is due to this correlation that enrolment in schools represents the largest component of the investment in human capital in any society. Rapid social and economic development of the nation has been observed to depend on the calibre of women and their education in that country. Education bestows on women a disposition for a lifelong acquisition of knowledge, values, attitudes, competencies and skills. The heinous abduction of these 200 schoolgirls by the Islamist militant group Boko Haram, whose name means 'Western education is a sin', has again highlighted the danger that many young girls face when attempting to go to school and has also highlighted that sections of some countries still wish to stand in the way of the right to equal education for women and continue to suppress them in society. In Nigeria, there are large disparities between the education of boys and the education of girls. Many girls do not have access to adequate education past a certain age. Currently, the adult female literacy rate, which is age 15 and above, for the country is 59.4 per cent, in comparison to the adult male literacy rate of 74.4 per cent. Differences in education have led to this gap in literacy. There are various cultural and socioeconomic issues that prevent women from having adequate access to education. One prominent cultural view is it is better for the women to stay home and learn to tend to their family instead of attending school. Nigerian tradition attaches higher value to a man than a woman, whose place is believed to be in the kitchen. A study by the University of Ibadan linked the imbalance in boys' and girls' participation to the long-held belief in male superiority and female subordination. This situation has been further aggravated by patriarchal practices which give girls no traditional rights to succession. Therefore, the same patriarchal practices encourage preference to be given to the education of a boy rather than a girl. The decline in economic activity since the 1980s has made education a luxury to many Nigerians, especially to those in rural areas. Because Nigerian parents are known to invest in children depending on their sex, birth order or natural endowment, girls and boys are not treated equally. Often the family can only afford to send one child to school and, because daughters have assumed responsibilities in the home, they are less likely to be the one to attend school. With so many factors already challenging these Nigerian schoolgirls and holding them back from obtaining an education, this latest abduction is a tragic atrocity. As Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has stated, the Australian community along with the global community is rightly outraged. We completely condemn the group responsible for these attacks. The Australian government is moving urgently to list Boko Haram under the Criminal Code as a terrorist organisation, and terrorist offences carry penalties of up to 25 years imprisonment in Australia. The foreign minister has offered Australia's support to the Nigerian government through our Ambassador for Counter-Terrorism. There is strong international pressure for Nigeria to accept the offers of assistance particularly from the United States, the United Kingdom and others. Nigeria has welcomed our support for its counter-terrorism efforts. The situation is quite perilous as it is understood that the girls have been separated into groups. There is a great deal of concern about the separation of the girls because if you try to free one group it could have an adverse impact on the other group. The foreign minister has advised that the security concerns are being considered very carefully. I recently joined the #BringBackOurGirls social media campaign with fellow Parliamentary Friends of Amnesty co-convener, the member for Scullin, in support of Michelle Obama's condemnation of this atrocity, and as a call to action for other countries to stand up for these schoolgirls and see their safe release. 11:58 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I too commend the member for Brisbane for raising this important motion in the parliament and for her prompt arrangement of an appearance of a representative of Nigeria before the appropriate committee of this parliament. I know the opposition will support, through the intelligence committee, the next stage of the proscription of this dreadful group Boko Haram, the Nigerian Islamist group which is the self-proclaimed Nigerian wing of al-Qaeda. It is very important for the proposer of this resolution to understand and for members of the Australian public to understand that important leaders of the great religion of Islam have condemned this particular group. Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti recently told Al-Hayat, an important Arab language newspaper, that the group was set up to smear the image of Islam, and condemned the kidnapping of 200 girls. Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al ash-Sheikh said the Boko Haram was trying to establish Islam in a misguided way in Nigeria and was showing people the wrong path; he is trying to get people to reject it. The kidnapping of 200 Christian and Muslim schoolgirls is made more odious by the forced conversion and boasts of— Debate interrupted. BILLS 4054 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-2014 4054

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-2014

Reference to Federation Chamber 4054 12:00 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra I declare that at 1.30 pm today the above bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration, and that at 8 pm they be returned to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 When the bills are returned to the House this evening, at 8 pm, they will be set down for consideration at a later hour. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 4054 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Nigeria 4054 12:01 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler If it suits the House, given I do think it is a critical debate, I move: That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would permit the member for Melbourne Ports to complete his speech on the motion moved by the member for Brisbane for a period not exceeding four minutes. Question agreed to. 12:01 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I thank the House, I thank the government and I thank our representative the excellent member for Grayndler. The social media campaign to 'bring back our girls' has resonated worldwide. The question is: why? Partially it is because increasingly and commendably around the world people believe all young women are entitled to a proper education and all the benefits that come from education. But it was the grotesque insolence of Boko Haram's leader, Abubakar Shekau, who said he would liberate these girls by selling them off into forced marriages, that triggered the international revulsion at these kidnappings. That happened about two or three weeks later, and that is when the international campaign took off. Whether we have a lack of international or Nigerian government leadership or not, people around the world, including the Islamic world—for instance a Twitter friend of mine in Turkey, a prominent compere on the popular Turkish station A9—understand that this cruelty to these young women is a threat to our common humanity, to civilisation and to all the advances in relations between the genders that we have seen since medieval times. Boko Haram are not, as some people have said, just extremists; they are jihadist terrorists. They hate modernity. They want us to return to 6th-century medievalism. They want to enslave women entirely and force them back into the Dark Ages, where they are owned, dressed and controlled by men. Boko Haram has come to mean 'Western education is forbidden', as the member for Berowra said, in the Hausa language. They are fighting against secular education, as the Nigerian jihadists see it. This al-Qaeda franchised group is amongst the world's most violent, having murdered nearly 5,000 of their fellow Nigerians in the last four years. Targeting Christian people particularly in Nigeria—the majority of the Nigerian population—is also one of their favoured tactics, which is explained, they claim, by the Koranic verse: 'Anyone who is not governed by what Allah has revealed is among the transgressors'. Other practices Boko Haram are opposed to include: voting in elections, wearing trousers or shirts, civil rights, gender equality, respect for minorities, freedom of movement and association, and freedom of religion—all of the things we must defend in what I regard as a civilisational struggle. Boko Haram is not only a disturbing force for evil in Nigeria but all over North Africa. We need to ask some tough questions of the Nigerian government and I am very grateful to the member for Brisbane for affording us that opportunity in a couple of days' time. I agree with the member for Berowra that the kidnapping of these girls is a threat to all of us. It is a symbolic challenge to all of human progress. Some people still regard the war on terror as politically incorrect. And if the forces of the United States, France, Israel and other countries kill some of the leaders of this group in their efforts to free these young women, which should be our absolute priority, that would not be something I would mourn. I regard this not as a criminal matter; this is a civilisational fight, a war against terrorism. Therefore, in the most profound way, I want to agree with the member for Canberra and the member for Brisbane when I say these young women in Nigeria represent all of us; they represent the progress of civilisation. I join the member for Canberra in saying: bring back our girls. Debate interrupted. BILLS 4055 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015 4055

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015

Second Reading 4055 12:06 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I take this opportunity to associate myself with the comments of the previous debate and congratulate the member for Brisbane for bringing this important international issue to the attention of the House. I thank the speakers who contributed to the debate. In my opening remarks, can I firstly say that for each of us as federal members there is an element of integrity that each of us try and uphold. Each of us has family members; each of us has those we try and protect to the best of our abilities in the course of our duties. I take this opportunity in the appropriations debate to condemn the Australian Labor Party for its attacks this week on the family of the Prime Minister. I suggest that they were repugnant. I suggest that they were uncalled for. I would suggest that as members of this House we do everything in our power to protect those people we love. In setting a benchmark, I would hope that in my political career, in whatever time is left available to me, I never fall to such a level where I find myself with such a lack of material that I am limited to attacking the family members of those who I oppose. I was very fortunate to have a physical career playing contact sport. Whilst you are on the paddock, the intention is to play as hard as you can to achieve victory for your side. On occasion in contact sport your intent is to limit the movement of your opposition. But, nevertheless, the sporting field is a great place. You can go to the dressing shed of your opposition and share a cleansing ale in victory or loss. There are rules. So I take the opportunity to distance myself from the attack on the family of the Prime Minister and offer my sincere apologies. I hope that as ladies and gentlemen of this House we do not see a repeat performance of that. Coming back closer to the appropriations bill, to properly and contextually discuss the budget you must start at the beginning. I will start with what we inherited—a mess that was left behind—and the challenges that we faced. We have been left with a situation where our economy is sluggish. We currently have an upward trend in our unemployment stats. The economy is transitioning from growth, led by investment in our resources projects, to economic activity driven from the services sector. This is underway at a time when the economy is growing below trend. More recently the Westpac-Melbourne Institute leading index, which indicates the likely pace of economic activity three to nine months into the future, fell for a second month in a row in February. It was down 0.72 percentage points, taking us to minus 0.09 per cent, indicating below trend economic growth. Gross GDP remains sluggish at 2.7 per cent in 2014. Since October last year, a Washington based institute has downgraded its Australian growth forecast to 2.6 per cent in 2014 and 2.7 per cent in 2015. It had previously expected growth of 2.8 per cent and 2.9 per cent in those years respectively. The downgrading of Australia's expected growth is a nail in the coffin for our increasing unemployment rate. The unemployment rate has been rising—from 4.9 per cent in 2011 to around 5.6 per cent this year. The economy needs to grow by more than three per cent a year to keep unemployment in check. It is paramount that when we do our forecasts these assumptions are calculated on accurate growth rates. We need an economy that tracks at around three per cent for us to maintain suitable growth in our forecasts. It is irresponsible for outlook years to forecast rates in excess of those—3.9 per cent is unsustainable. It distorts assumptions and the forecast. I will come later in the speech to Labor's track record on their capacity to forecast. We were left with a snowballing economic outlook as a result of the falling terms of trade. Commodity prices peaked in 2011. However, as they declined, the speed of the decline was even more rapid than many expected. In the September quarter of 2011, the terms of trade peaked, hitting a level of some 105 per cent above those prevailing around 2001-02. We were left with an economic perfect storm. We were left with a budget that was out of control. We were left with tough decisions to make in order to get our nation's books back on track. We were left with a fiscal situation where, quite frankly, the government of the day was spending more than they earned. They were borrowing from future generations to try to win favour and hearts in the political arena. They were shamefully spending money that was supposed to be generated by taxes that never generated anywhere near the revenue they suspected they would. Labor failed to make the tough decisions during their six years in charge. They chose to make unaffordable promises, spending like drunken sailors and ignoring significant economic warnings. Labor delivered five record deficits. Labor had a habit of overpromising and underdelivering when it came to the budget. In the 2011-12 budget, Labor promised a deficit of $22.6 billion for the budget year and they ended up delivering a budget deficit of $43.4 billion. It was not a bad effort but they missed it by about $20 billion. In the 2012-13 budget they promised a surplus of $1.5 billion. They promised a surplus but in reality delivered an $18.8 billion deficit. Again, they missed it by about $20 billion. This opposition could not hit the side of a barn with an economic forecast. In the 2013-14 budget, which I have been prompted to speak about, Labor promised a deficit of $18 billion for the year and they came in at around $50 billion. We are comfortable in managing the books because most of us on this side of the House come from business backgrounds whilst those on the other side come predominantly from union backgrounds. For the very few people on the other side of the House who have had businesses, I say to them that, in the majority, we are as confident managing the books as those on the other side are at manning picket lines. Howard adopted from Labor a 17.5 per cent interest rate, 9.3 per cent inflation and 11 per cent unemployment. Successive budget deficits exceeded $10 billion per annum and government debt was at $96 billion. As a testament to our ability to run a safe set of books, Rudd adopted from Howard a 6.75 per cent interest rate, three per cent inflation, 4.4 per cent unemployment and a record surplus, around $20 billion, plus $60 billion put aside in the Future Fund. That is all gone. Labor left us looking at a budget deficit of $123 billion in four years and debt rising to $667 billion. They will try to distance themselves from their poor economic management and skill sets, but the figures will not lie, and they do not. Rising debt and a generational sacrifice means that we are going to have to make tough decisions to pay back the debt. In the words of the Grattan Institute, persistent budget deficits 'incur interest payments and limit future borrowings; they can unfairly shift costs between generations, and reduce flexibility in a crisis.' In Europe, the global financial crisis morphed into a sovereign debt crisis and demonstrated the pain that comes from persistent budget deficits. This budget seeks to correct our nation's deficits so that we do not find ourselves in a situation similar to that of our Northern Hemisphere brothers and sisters. Labor left us with no surplus in sight. They will claim that they had the budget back on track, but I can assure you that the history books tell us that their forecasts were continually $12 billion to $20 billion out. Labor claim that there was no budget emergency. Irrespective of how you look at it, whether or not you want to claim that there is no budget emergency, we are now servicing an interest payment of $1 billion each month and climbing. A lot of what Labor claim should not be taken at face value. They claim that this budget rips money from health. The budget papers clearly show that there is no cut to hospital funding in this budget, quite the opposite. In 2015-16 it increases by nine per cent or $1.4 billion a year. In 2016-17 it increases by another nine per cent or $1.5 billion a year. In 2017-18 over the forward estimates it increases by another six per cent or $1.1 billion a year. In this budget hospital funding increases by over $5 billion or around 40 per cent over four years. Those on the other side of the House will go into the out years and into the never-never because that is where they find solitude; that is where they find sanctuary. The real numbers presented in the budget show a 40 per cent increase over four years. The government will provide total hospital funding to the states of almost $70 billion over the four years to 2017-18. In typical fashion, Labor made big promises to increase hospital and schools funding out into the future, promises that could never be funded. They could never be funded because Labor's forecasts were based on growth rates well in excess of what the trends dictate. Labor claimed that they would increase hospital funding by over 10 per cent a year. That would have seen health funding skyrocket from $15 billion a year to around $40 billion a year within just a decade. The fact is that that was never sensible or affordable. It was a pipedream promised by a Labor government that never expected to have to deliver it. Labor are claiming this budget rips money from education. The coalition is taking school funding to record highs. We are investing record recurrent funding of $64.5 billion in government and non-government schools over the next four years. This is $1.2 billion more than the previous government would have spent over the forward estimates to ensure that schools in all states and territories receive extra funding. From 2013-14 to 2017-18 total Commonwealth funding to all schools in Australia, as outlined in the 2014-15 budget papers, will have increased by 37 per cent or $4.6 billion. Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition came into the House and spoke about education, commenting that it was the right of every child to have a good education. Let us look at Labor's track record on education. Yes, while we have got some new tuckshops and some new school halls, when we measure our educational outputs against those of our international partners, since that capital investment—the education revolution, which was going to transform the Australian education economy—we have gone backwards by international standards. Can I suggest that throwing more money at the problem is not the answer. It is about spending the money that we have more wisely. There are claims that this budget rips money from pensioners. The government promised before the election that there would be no cuts or changes to pensions during this term of government. This budget confirms this commitment. Current and future pensioners will not experience any decrease in their pension payments. I repeat: there will be no decrease in their pension payments. Pensions will continue to increase after the changes come in. The changes to payments represent forgone gains, not a reduction in dollar benefits—payments will still go up but will just be indexed differently. Labor are now standing in the way of nearly $40 billion of budget savings. Labor have already stood in the way of nearly $20 billion of savings over the forward estimates period, including around $5 billion of savings Labor themselves proposed before the last election. A member opposite spoke in the press about the introduction of co-payments but will dare to stand and oppose co-payments. The savings Labor proposed but are now opposing or have opposed are: $1.1 billion of research and development tax changes, $2.3 billion of higher education savings, $1.5 billion from the cancellation of the 2015-16 tax cuts linked to the carbon tax, and a $106 million childcare rebate saving resulting from extending the pause of the indexation of the childcare rebate for a further three years. In the time remaining to me I will say that the co-payment is not a new phenomenon. There is evidence, going back to the Hawke and Keating days, where Labor actually introduced a co-payment. So whether you voted for the coalition or for Labor, I assure you that this opposition has a track record. I have no doubt that whether we were voted in or whether they were voted in, co-payments would have been introduced somewhere in the budget. Dr Leigh, a member opposite, wrote in a newspaper: But there's a better way of operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all. As economists have shown, the ideal model involves a small co-payment—not enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to make you think twice before you call the doc. And the idea is hardly radical. (Time expired) 12:21 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon This is a budget which is unravelling before our very eyes from a government which is united in its disunity as it tries to sell this atrocious budget. It is a budget which has been comprehensively rejected right across the country, and I am sure coalition members, in the week that just passed as they went back to their electorates, got the message loud and clear from their electorates just how bad this budget is for the people they represent. It is now up to them to stand up for the people they represent. Instead of giving a speech like the one we just heard, the member for Wright could actually have represented his electorate and stood up for his pensioners. Instead of claiming, falsely, that there are no cuts to the pension, he could stand up for the pensioners in his electorate, as all members opposite could. He could stand up for the schools and hospitals in his electorate which have had cuts. The Premier of Queensland knows they have had cuts, but the honourable member opposite seems incapable of realising they have suffered cuts in this budget—schools and hospitals. There have been cuts to family payments. People have been frozen out of Newstart, creating an underclass in this country. These are the measures which are being comprehensively rejected around the country, along with the trashing of the fundamental principles of Medicare, one of the great institutions of this nation, which Labor created and Labor will fight to defend. It is all very well for the member for Wright and other members opposite to say that $7 is not much for people in his electorate and around the country to pay to see a doctor. But the universality of Medicare, the universality of health care, is a fundamental principle which members right across the country should be defending and which members on this side of the House will defend. We will defend it in this House and in the other place and we will defend it right around the country. Members on the other side have a choice: they can come in here and stand up for their electorates, stand up for people's right to see a doctor, to take their children to a doctor free of charge, or they can stand up for their Prime Minister and their Treasurer. They cannot do both. They must decide. Are you for the people in your electorate or are you for your government? Because your government is launching an attack on the people in your electorates. We have seen the government, and we saw another example just then, scrambling to defend this budget, scrambling in an Orwellian attempt to deny that these fundamental changes in the budget are not broken promises—verbal gymnastics that we see from the Treasurer in particular, trying to say that this budget does not represent a fundamental breach of commitment to the Australian people. There are two big problems with this budget. One is that it shows that this government was elected on a web of wilful and consistent and systematic deceit, making false promises to the Australian people about the cost of living, false promises to the Australian people about the state of the budget and being able to return the budget to surplus without new taxes and without spending cuts over and above those which had been previously identified. It is a web of deceit in which the Liberal and National parties engaged up until and including the September election which has now been exposed by this budget. The other is that it is a fundamentally unfair manifesto. We saw the Treasurer's spin at work again on the weekend, with the leaking of Treasury analysis which apparently showed the impact on families was not that great; it was not that big. '"Nothing to see here," Treasury told us,' according to the spin from the Treasurer over the weekend. There is only one little problem with that: it was not Treasury analysis at all. It was not Treasury analysis at all. This is a Treasurer who said, when he came into office, 'I will never leak Treasury advice to defend my position; I will always stand up for myself.' I have to give him that; he has not done that. He has invented Treasury analysis. He has not leaked the real stuff; he has leaked false Treasury analysis, because it does not exist. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 Order! I ask the member for McMahon to withdraw that accusation. Mr BOWEN DZS On what basis, Mr Deputy Speaker? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 It is a reflection on a member. I would ask the member to assist the House and withdraw. Mr BOWEN DZS I withdraw. The fact of the matter is that there is no such document in existence. There is no 'Treasury analysis'. It does not exist. The allegation that this document which has been released to the media is Treasury analysis is patently false. It does not exist. That is a statement of fact. There is a pattern of behaviour here from this Treasurer. He sneakily releases these documents and claims they are Treasury analysis. Then, when further questions are asked, it turns out they were written in his office or the Prime Minister's office, not down at the Treasury. The Treasury should not be politicised in this way. The Treasury is a fine institution which has served the people of Australia well for 114 years. It is not the political plaything of this Treasurer, and he should not politicise its name in an attempt to justify his atrocious policies. If he wants to defend his policies, he should stand up for them, not claim that he has Treasury analysis which does not exist. If the government want to do little spreadsheets on the back of an envelope in their offices and work out little false calculations and then release them, that is up to them. But stand up for them. Admit to the Australian people what you are doing. The fact of the matter is that there is analysis of this budget, and it is by NATSEM, a respected modelling outfit. They have actually been referred to by the Prime Minister as one of the most respected economic modelling outfits in this country. The evidence from them is stark: over 100,000 families in the lowest quintile will see $43 cut from their weekly budgets every week. If this is your idea of cost-of-living relief, next time don't bother: I say this to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly. Remember, the Prime Minister stood at the dispatch box and said they were 'riding to the rescue' of the Australian people. Well, don't turn up next time! This is what happens when those opposite ride to the rescue of the Australian people. A sole parent with an income of $55,000, with two kids, one in primary school and one in high school, will face a $20,000 hit to their budget. By just 2015, this family will face a 10 per cent annual hit to their current family income, or more than $5,700 a year. A couple on a single income of $75,000, with two kids, one not yet in school and one in primary school, will face a $2,000 decline in annual family income in 2015. By 2017-18, this family will have $7,400 less income than they would have had prior to this budget. They are the facts. I do not need to leak Treasury analysis which does not exist, as the Treasurer needs to do. I am happy to stand at this dispatch box and defend the analysis which has been commissioned by the opposition from a respected modeller. We will do that—and the Treasurer should have the courage to do the same, instead of leaking analysis which does not exist. Ben Phillips from NATSEM has stated: We'd estimate around 1.2 million families that would be on average around $3,000 a year worse off by 2017-18, whereas the top income groups—so the top 20 per cent of households—would have either no impact or a very small positive impact— a very small positive impact. That is what the independent analysis shows. That is what the documents that we are prepared to stand behind show, documents that have been released publicly and transparently. Let the Treasurer pick a hole in them. Let the Treasurer come in here and find an error, and let him argue that out with NATSEM, those respected modellers. He is not prepared to do so. What he does do is engage in Orwellian rhetoric and release to newspapers documents which are claimed to be Treasury analysis, which are clearly not. As I said, this is a budget which has been rejected right across the country not only by people in communities, but also by premiers and state treasurers who are outraged, rightly, at their treatment by this government, the arrogant treatment of this Prime Minister and this Treasurer of the elected premiers of the states. I do not have universally positive views of all the premiers but they are people of accomplishment and they do not deserve to be treated this way, and the states they represent do not deserve to be treated in this arrogant and offhand way by this Prime Minister, who says they should be 'grown-ups'. That is an insult to the state premiers and to the states they represent. Mike Keating, a respected former bureaucrat who has had to deal with some very difficult issues and deliver very difficult policies in his time, said: This Government has cut the bottom rungs of the ladder of opportunity. And of course he is right about that. This a fundamentally unfair document which the Treasurer and the Prime Minister do not even understand. They do not understand their own policy. Last week we saw the Prime Minister in a public relations triumph going out and blitzing talkback radio right across the country, getting basic facts wrong and telling university students that the cuts would not apply to them, when they clearly do. He said that because they were going to start university next year, the cuts would not apply to them. But they clearly do apply to them. We saw the Treasurer claim that the GP tax would not be paid by people with chronic illness. Wrong, just plain wrong. If the Prime Minister and the Treasurer do not understand the policies they are introducing, why should the Australian people pay for them? Then the Treasurer in the budget papers did not include the tables, which have traditionally been included in every single budget since 2005, on the impact of their changes on families with different incomes, showing how fair the budget is or otherwise. Peter Costello did it. Wayne Swan did it. Certainly in economic statements under treasurers since 2005 those things have been included—and in budgets in particular. But it did not occur in this budget. When the Treasurer was asked about this he said: 'That is just not right. You cannot believe everything you read in the Sydney Morning Herald.' The Sydney Morning Herald is not the one with the credibility problem here. It is the Treasurer who has misled the Australian people here. It is the Treasurer who has produced a budget which very conveniently does not include those tables in the budget documents, because they would show just how unfair this budget is. We just heard again from the member for Wright saying that Australians should make these contributions and these tough decisions and these payments—for example, the GP tax—to get the budget back on an even footing, to get it fiscally healthy and sound. There is only one problem with that, apart from the fact that it is fundamentally unfair and a trashing of the principle of universal health care. Mr Buchholz interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS The $7 GP tax does not even go to the budget bottom line; it goes to a new fund. Such is the budget emergency, they can trash the universality of Medicare and not even use the money to return the budget to surplus. They want to create a new fund to finance health and medical research. Who would disagree with more money for health and medical research? Nobody would. But the cures of today should not be paid for by taxing the sick of today, nor should the cures of tomorrow. Mr Buchholz interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS The member for Wright and other honourable members should recognise that this GP tax is not being used to return the budget to surplus at all. These are the priorities and the value judgements of this government. The other thing they are doing of course is introducing an expensive and extravagant and unfair paid parental leave scheme, sending cheques of $50,000 to people, who may be millionaires, to have babies. Budgets are about priorities and this is the priority of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. They are saying to people: 'If you are under 30, we cannot afford to put you on Newstart. If you are a pensioner, we cannot afford to index your pension fairly. If you are a family, we cannot afford to let you go to the doctor for free. If you are a family on a low income or a single income, we need to take money from you. But if you are a millionaire, we can send you a cheque for $50,000 if you have a baby.' These are the priorities of this government. This is what this Prime Minister and this Treasurer are foisting on the Australian people and, I suspect, foisting on all those members opposite who do not actually support this policy but do not have the courage to stand up against this extravagant policy. It shows the warped and twisted priorities of this government. A budget is about choices and this government has made the choice to harm Australia's pensioners and, despite the protestations of the member for Wright, to take money from them. If you introduce unfair indexation, you are taking money from Australia's pensioners. You are saying to Australia's families, 'We will take money from you because we are going to charge you to go to the doctor.' You are saying to Australians, 'We are going to take money from you by forcing an underclass of those people under 30 and denying them any benefit when it comes to Newstart.' These are the priorities and values of this government: whilst sending cheques out for $50,000, taking money away from single-income families across Australia's cities and regions and rural areas. I know there are members opposite who know the impact of this. They know the impact of the family tax benefit changes and how bad they will be right across the country and in rural and regional areas as well, and what are they doing about it? They can do something about it. They can come and sit on this side of the chamber and vote accordingly. They can actually have the courage of their convictions if they have got them and stand up for their constituents. They can stand up against this government and this Prime Minister. They can roll them on the paid parental leave scheme. They can sit on this side and do the heavy lifting with this side of the House when it comes to defending Australians who deserve a better budget and a better government than the one they have got. The Australian people have seen the values of this government over the last fortnight since the budget was delivered and they do not like them. They do not like the values of this government. It is not the government they were promised and it is not the government they deserve. They deserve so much better. Fundamentally, they deserve a government that is honest with them, that is upfront with them, which tells them before the election how much money they are going to take from them, instead of the false and misleading systematic campaign that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer masterminded before the election and the fundamentally unfair manifesto which is this budget, which takes from people and gives to others, which gives $50,000 cheques to some but takes away $20,000 over the next four years from others. These are values which the government is welcome to defend, but we will fight. We will fight in this place and the other place and across the community because it is an unfair budget. 12:36 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Last week I travelled from one end of my electorate to the other, from Bundaberg to Hervey Bay, stopping in Childers, Woodgate, Burrum Heads and Howard. I wanted to give Hinkler residents an opportunity to speak to me directly after the release of the coalition's first budget. I thought that if any electorate was going to be critical of the budget it would be mine. Hinkler has the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the country, we have more age pensioners than any other federal electorate and Bundaberg has the highest rate of disability in Queensland. And we also have amongst the highest rates of smoking and obesity. Before the budget was released, the member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, shamelessly targeted my electorate of Hinkler—just like Chicken Little scaring the vulnerable—by telling them that the coalition wanted to cut pensions. Let me assure the residents of my electorate that the sky is not falling. We promised not to change age pensions in this term of parliament and we have not. At the 2013 election we promised to get the budget under control and to grow the economy, and that is exactly what we are doing. There is no doubt that this is a tough budget, but those difficult choices will reduce Labor's deficits by $43 billion and debt will be $275 billion lower over the decade. This is because governments, like households and businesses, must live within their means. Small business people know better than most that if you are going to borrow money to expand your operation or invest in capital, then you need a plan to pay that money back. When you start borrowing money to pay the staff and keep the lights on that is when you are in real trouble. Likewise, it is ill-advised for households to spend money on luxuries they cannot afford. But that is exactly what the former Labor government did. Did they forget that at some point the credit card would have to be paid off? Or did they just not care? Labor had no plan to repair the budget when they were in government. Labor have no plan now. They offer no alternatives; just rhetoric and scaremongering. After six years of Labor, what did Australians get? We got the bill! In his budget reply speech, the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said that this budget was drawn up by people who have never lived from pay cheque to pay cheque. I take great offence at remarks like that, and Labor's constant insistence that coalition members are out of touch with working families. I am a tradesperson. I did a four-year electrical apprenticeship at Fairymead Sugar Mill. I am a farmer: my wife and I own two cane farms, and my parents continue to operate a harvesting business. I am university educated: at the age of 22 I worked part time as a lifeguard to support myself through an engineering degree at the Queensland University of Technology. I have established a small business that employed up to 15 people at any one time. It delivered vocational training and consultancy services to industrial workplaces. I have three children, and my wife works part time as a radiographer at one of the local hospitals. But the member for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten, is private-school educated, studied arts and law at university and has since worked as a union bureaucrat and a politician. I would be interested to know how many times Mr Shorten has lived from pay cheque to pay cheque. I can tell you there are plenty of people in my electorate of Hinkler who do live pay cheque to pay cheque every single fortnight. Some of them have been in my office this past week, deeply concerned about how the budget will affect them. But when you explain the detail, many realise just how much misinformation is being peddled by those opposite. Pensioners and children under 16 will pay no more than $70 per calendar year for medical treatment under the proposed $7 medical co-contribution. And the indexation of the fuel excise will add less than one cent per litre to the cost of petrol. The funds raised through these budget measures will go towards a medical research fund and road infrastructure. To make matters worse, some media reports have been very one-sided or scant on detail. To promote my post-budget tour across the electorate last week, one local TV journalist asked if she and her cameraman could accompany me on a street walk. The three people I approached understood that tackling Labor's debt would require everyone to play a part, and that our current situation was unsustainable. However, the journalist overlooked all three of these supportive constituents, and instead ran grabs she later obtained from people who were unhappy with the budget. I am grateful to those Hinkler constituents who have read the detail for themselves—those who have contacted my office or approached me directly to seek answers to their questions. My door is always open. There is no doubt this is a tough budget and it is only fair that everyone contributes to the repair task. Australians earning over $180,000 a year—who already pay significant taxes—will be required to pay a temporary budget repair levy of two per cent for three years. We have frozen politicians' pay and we will put an end to the gold pass travel entitlements. Each year the government spends more on welfare than it does on the education of our children and the health of our people. The government is tightening the eligibility for family payments to ensure it supports those most in need of assistance because without policy changes the cost of the age pension is projected to increase by 70 per cent over the next decade, from almost $40 billion a year currently. The previous government increased the pension age to 67, and we are further increasing that age to 70 by 1 July 2035. Australians will still be able to retire at whatever age they choose, but those born after 1966 will have to be 70 before they can receive the age pension. The government will introduce incentives of up to $10,000 to encourage businesses to employ people who are over the age of 50 who have been on unemployment benefits or the disability support pension for six months. From September 2017, pensions will be indexed to the CPI rather than wages. This way we can ensure that our pension system remains sustainable while pensions keep up with the cost of living. The family home will continue to be excluded from the social security means test. This government recognises the contribution self-funded retirees make to the community, including saving the nation considerable pension costs. From 20 September 2014, the income thresholds for the Commonwealth seniors health card will be indexed annually to the CPI, enabling up to 27,000 additional people to qualify for the card over the next four years. Indexing the current income thresholds will mean more self-funded retirees will not lose out on entitlements because of changes in their income, giving them more freedom to actively contribute to their community. Seniors health card holders will no longer receive the seniors supplement. However, they will continue to receive a range of concessional benefits, including lower co-payments for medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and access to the lower threshold for the extended Medicare safety net. Changes to the PBS will increase the cost of prescriptions for concessional patients by 80c to $6.90, and after 60 prescriptions it will be free for the rest of the calendar year. But the budget contains plenty of good news too! This budget delivers on every one of my election commitments to the people of Hinkler:    $4.75 million for Old Toogoom Road and River Heads Road; $350,000 for the Hervey Bay Hockey Association to install synthetic turf; $500,000 for upgrades at the Hervey Bay and Bundaberg surf lifesaving clubs; $93,000 for Bundaberg Regional Council to install surf safety surveillance cameras at the Elliott River Mouth, Palmers Creek, Innes Park and Mon Repos; and, of course, $125,000 for the Centenary of Anzac Local Grants program across Hinkler After repeated calls from local community groups, we have committed $245.3 million over four years to continue the National School Chaplaincy program. The coalition is delivering more than $12 billion in overall funding to the veteran community, including honouring our election commitment to deliver fair indexation for military superannuants. Even after the carbon tax is repealed to save average households $550 per year, the associated tax breaks and energy supplements will remain in place to provide cost-of-living relief. Much to the relief of Hinkler farmers and commercial fishers, the diesel fuel rebate has been retained. The rebate will be indexed at the same rate as the fuel excise, meaning there will be no net increase in the cost of diesel for those who receive the rebate. The reintroduction of indexation on the fuel excise will cost an additional $24 per year for someone who uses 50 litres of fuel per week. As I previously mentioned, money raised from the indexation of the fuel excise will be spent on roads, bringing the government's infrastructure budget to a record $50 billion. The coalition understands that well-planned infrastructure, delivered in a timely manner, is vital to our economy. It also facilitates service delivery to regional Australia and provides long-term employment and opportunities for training and development. That is why $13.4 billion will be spent in Queensland, including $6.7 billion on the ailing Bruce Highway. We are delivering a $1 billion National Stronger Regions Fund. Councils and community groups will be able to apply for grants for capital works projects that will regenerate communities with high unemployment. There is $300 million for the new bridges renewal program and $100 million to address mobile telephone black spots I understand that transport infrastructure is not the only hurdle that regional businesses have to overcome. Here in Australia, regulation is high, input costs are high, labour costs are high, the Australian dollar is high and profits are low. We are working to change that. We are cutting the company tax rate by 1½ per cent to help around 800,000 businesses. Repealing the carbon tax will help business flourish because the electricity costs incurred through irrigation and refrigerant gases, for example, skyrocketed with the introduction of the tax. We are cutting red and green tape to save businesses time and money, which will lift productivity and boost economic growth. Building on the free trade agreements we recently signed with South Korea and Japan, the government will provide $15 million to help small exporters. There is $9 million to support our recreational and commercial fishing bodies, $100 million extra for agricultural research and development and $20 million to build a stronger biosecurity and quarantine system. Let me tell you why we are trying to make it easier, not harder, to do business in Australia. It is business that grows our economy. It is business that creates jobs. Small businesses are the backbone of regional Australia. They employ 50 per cent of all Australians working in the private sector. Jobs are sorely needed in my electorate of Hinkler. Unemployment is our single biggest issue. Unemployment is often a contributing factor in cases of marital breakdown, domestic violence, criminal activity, poor nutrition, health problems and declining school attendance. Employment gives people the ability to pay their own way and provide for their families. The people of this great nation should be able to depend on their elected representatives, but that does not mean we should be building a nation of dependants. Under the Rudd and Gillard governments, unemployment in the Hinkler electorate increased from six per cent in the September 2007 quarter to 9.6 per cent in the June 2013 quarter. That compares to an unemployment rate of 5.4 per cent for the nation or six per cent in Queensland. As promised, we are revitalising the Work for the Dole program to give people routine, structure, presentation skills and access to potential employers. Young people will now be required to earn, learn or work for the dole. We are fortunate to live in a country where this government provides a safety net to those who find themselves without employment. Requiring Australians to work for the dole ensures that that obligation is mutual. I recently spoke to the state member for Hervey Bay, Ted Sorensen, about the reintroduction of the Howard government's Work for the Dole program. When Ted was the local mayor, Work for the Dole participants helped construct all the walkways and bike paths along the esplanade. Ted cannot speak highly enough of the program. He says it built self-confidence and gave participants a sense of achievement. Many went on to gain long-term employment as a direct result of their involvement in Work for Dole. Financial incentives will be provided to employers and employees to get young people into the workforce. Long-term unemployed Hinkler residents aged between 18 and 30 will receive $2,500 if they hold a job for a continuous period of 12 months and a further bonus of $4,000 when they attain 24 months of service. For the first time, those undertaking an apprenticeship will be able to apply for concessional loans of up to $20,000 in a scheme similar to HECS. Students with low socioeconomic backgrounds or from regional areas will have access to a new Commonwealth scholarship scheme. In the past eight months, seven federal ministers, three parliamentary secretaries and four coalition senators have visited the Hinkler electorate to hear about the issues impacting local residents and businesses. I also hosted the first Nationals party room meeting for 2014 in Bundaberg. Born and bred in the Bundaberg district, I take every opportunity to advocate on behalf of Hinkler residents. With this budget it will be no different. Constituents can rest assured that I will take their grievances to the relevant minister. In closing, gone is the unstable Labor government that in a very short time gave us two prime ministers, two Treasurers and five Assistant Treasurers. Australians have elected a coalition government to repair the budget and build the stronger, more prosperous country that we all want. This budget starts that process. I commend the bills to the House. 12:50 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney This is a budget of broken promises. It is a bad budget for Australia and it is a bad budget for Australians. The broken promises of this budget reveal a government with a serious deficit—a values deficit. The budget's broken promises will hit low- and middle-income families and the elderly. The poorest will suffer the most, but everyone suffers. Before the election the Prime Minister said there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS. Every single one of those promises is broken in this budget. Australians expect their government to run a strong economy, but that is just the start of what we expect. We expect the government to have a vision for the future of our country and a plan to get there. Australians value our egalitarian society. We want a society where hard work is rewarded but where a little bit of bad luck does not mean the end of the world; a society where no-one is left behind. This budget fails that fairness test. It hits the poorest the hardest. It makes life harder for millions of ordinary Australians struggling to balance their family budget. This budget makes it harder for people when they fill up at the petrol pump, when they go to the doctor, when they buy medicines. For that reason Labor will fight the unfair measures in this budget every step of the way. The budget shows how starkly the differences between the two sides of politics play out. What kind of government would deliver a budget that will reduce the income of a couple who have a combined income of $95,000 and two kids by almost $5,000 a year? How do those members go back to their electorates and tell those families that this government is taking $5,000 a year from them? What kind of the government would deliver a budget that will reduce the income of a sole parent with two kids, earning $55,000 a year, by $6,000 a year? These are not our numbers; these are figures provided by NATSEM. What has really surprised me, though, about the public anger in response to this budget is that people are not just angry about the broken promises and attacks on their own family budgets; they are angry about what is happening to other people. Parents with young kids who have lost the family tax benefit and the schoolkids bonus are not just talking to me about their family budget—they are talking to me about how unfair it is that pensioners who have worked hard all their lives are being told that their pensions will be cut. Pensioners who have never had a chance to go to university themselves are talking to me about their grandkids—and not even their own grandkids, but kids that age—who now have to choose between getting a decent university education and buying a home of their own one day. Young Australians, who are set to be slugged with these mind-boggling student debts, are talking to me about how it makes the decision to go to university much harder, but that is not all they are talking to me about. They are concerned about the $7.6 billion that this government is cutting from the aid budget, cuts made on the back of the world's poorest. Mr Ewen Jones 96430 Hear, hear! Ms PLIBERSEK 83M 'Hear, hear!' says the member for Herbert up there. These young people are concerned, too, about the cuts to the climate change programs that would mean Australia was contributing to reducing the likelihood of global warming passing that critical two degree benchmark that scientists tell us is so important. So, despite what the Treasurer says, the angry reaction to this budget is not because Australians are selfish: it is the exact opposite. Of course they are concerned for their own family budgets, but they are concerned for all of the people who are hit hardest by this budget as well. They do not want to see Australia become a two-tier system—a user-pays, American-style, 'you're fine if you're wealthy but God help you if you're not' style system. We will have a system that condemns kids who are born poor to grow up poor and to be sent to school in second-rate schools. We will have a health system that is world-class if you are wealthy and unattainable if you are not. Australians do not want a society of haves and have-nots. They value our way of life and that is why, while they want a strong economy, they want a fair society too. This budget fails on both counts. I have had so many individual constituents stop me in the street to talk to me about the issues that will affect them. There are hundreds of little changes, as they come out over coming days and weeks, that will really impact them. A woman with cerebral palsy, who has managed to get back into the workforce with the help of the disability support pension, is terrified about what the changes mean for her in the future. A 23-year-old who has been saving up for his first home, using a first home saver account, says he feels cheated that the scheme has been cut. What is really scary about this is that it is not clear whether the members opposite really know what this budget is doing. You would think the Prime Minister would know, but we have had the Prime Minister say on Melbourne radio recently that an average person would only have to pay the $7 GP co-payment the first 10 times they went to the doctor: uh-uh! There is a safety net for people who are concession card holders and children but there is no safety net for ordinary working people, so mum's and dad's family budget will be under pressure. You know who will not be going to the doctor. You would think the Minister for Education would know: uh-uh! He said that the new arrangements for HECS debts and deregulated fees apply only for new students enrolling from 1 January 2016, but it seems the budget papers say the changes apply to all students enrolling from 14 May 2014 who will be studying in 2016, and to all people with a current HECS or HELP debt. It is not very reassuring, is it? The cuts are so deep and so brutal but the people who are supposed to be coming up with them and implementing them do not actually understand them. As well as the values deficit, the economic arguments of this budget just do not stack up. The coalition's hysteria is built on a confected budget emergency. They hope that if they say often enough that the end is nigh, people will come to believe it. The most astonishing thing, given this hysteria around the confected budget emergency, is that they have actually managed to deliver bigger deficits. They have done a deal with the Greens for 'debt unlimited'. The deficits in the first three years, from 2014-15, are actually larger than the ones that were predicted in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook statement—which was prepared not by us but by Treasury and Finance, before the election. It is worth reminding people that this Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook is a Peter Costello, Charter of Budget Honesty innovation and sets the benchmark for each party's election commitments going into the election. Why has that happened? Because they have added $68 billion to the deficit in just a few months by giving almost $9 billion—unasked for and unneeded—to the Reserve Bank by changing a number of economic parameters and by spending. If there is a budget emergency, what should we do? Should we find $22 billion for a gold-plated paid parental leave scheme? It just shows how wrong the priorities of this budget are. Pensioners who are surviving on around $22,000 a year get a cut so that people who are earning $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 or $1 million a year can get $50,000 to have a baby. They cut superannuation support for low- and middle-income workers so that they could leave in place measures that allow the highest income workers to benefit most from super tax concessions. They will bring back petrol taxes that will hit everyone who drives but will hit those living in outer suburbs and in regional areas the worst. They are going to hit them with petrol taxes and then float the notion of a higher or broader GST at the same time as knocking back corporate tax avoidance and profit-shifting prevention measures that would have raised $1.1 billion. How on earth can anyone justify these priorities? Then there is the abolition of the carbon tax and the minerals resource rent tax in favour of taxes that hit the family budget. There is the $80 billion cut from education and health. I always knew that many on those benches opposite were big supporters of outsourcing; well, they have really done well in this instance. They have outsourced $80 billion of hospital and education cuts to the states. They are not prepared to do it themselves. They have just snatched that money from the states. It is extraordinary to just say that the states can deal with it—'This thing that has always been a shared responsibility is no longer a shared responsibility. We are just going to shove it onto the states and they can deal with the longer waiting lists for elective surgery, they can deal with the longer waiting times in emergency departments and they can deal with the cuts to our schools.' We met the budget rule of keeping real average spending growth to less than two per cent a year—the lowest four-year result in 23 years. We saved 200,000 jobs during the global financial crisis. We prevented Australia from falling into recession and we did it in a way that saw Australia coming back to surplus over the economic cycle because we agree that it is important that over time we do that. We delivered $180 billion in savings while we were in government. In fact, as health minister I delivered billions of dollars in savings but I did it by means testing the private health insurance rebate—opposed by those opposite—and by finding savings in the cost of generic medicines, by paying less for medicines as they came off patents. There were billions of dollars of savings that were opposed by those opposite. The government's cuts to the health budget make no sense. Why would you cut prevention programs if you want to keep people out of hospital, where it is expensive to look after them? Why cut prevention when the greatest health challenges—smoking, obesity and excessive alcohol consumption—cost us so much as a community? How does it make sense to cut health costs by reducing access to the cheapest part of the health system, general practice, knowing that the outcome will be sicker people and more strain on the hospital system? These are health cuts designed by someone who does not care about patients, just about short-term cuts. They will cost us all in the long run. You can cut costs in the health system by keeping people healthy and out of hospital or you can cut costs by rationing the access that sick people have to medical treatment. Guess which this government has chosen? I spoke earlier today about the massive cuts to foreign aid and what they will mean to the world's poorest people. I think it is so important to say that again as that is a stark example of just how different our values are. John Howard knew that Australia should be a nation of lifters not leaners when it came to international development assistance. John Howard knew that, but Tony Abbott does not. It is worth saying also that, if you are talking about our role in the world community, nations everywhere are looking at us now and asking: 'Why are you cutting an effective and cost-effective program to reduce air pollution, carbon pollution? Why are you cutting, for example, billions of dollars from environmental programs while finding $2.6 billion to pay big polluters to keep polluting? Why are you cutting from grassroots environmental programs, CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and renewable energy initiatives?' Then there is the broken promise on Landcare funding, ripping $483 million out of Landcare and conservation programs; the $2.8 million cut from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; the scrapping of climate change research across government agencies; and the abolition of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which actually makes money for the government. The world community is asking, 'Why are you doing these things at a time when everybody else is moving in the other direction, moving to tackle climate change?' There is another broken promise on Landcare and another broken promise on the ABC and SBS. There are cuts of $43.5 billion over four years to the ABC and SBS and a cut of almost $200 million to the Australia Network. This is a budget of broken promises. It is a budget of wrong priorities. It is a budget that hurts the poorest the most. It is a budget that shows very clearly the values deficit of this government. 13:04 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert I have just listened to the shadow Treasurer and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for 30 minutes on these appropriation bills and there was not one solution proffered. There was 30 minutes of whingeing, moaning and carrying on. There was not one solution offered, so go back to the glory days. First and foremost I would like to pass on my personal best wishes and congratulations to the Treasurer, Joe B Hockey, and the leadership group of the coalition government for the job that they have done here. This budget lays the foundations for our nation to be more productive, more affluent and more inclusive. In September last year, just after Mr Hockey was made Treasurer, he gave a speech that has always stuck with me. He said we have to do three things: first, we have to tell the people what the problem is; second, we have to tell the people what we are going to do about it; and, third and most importantly, we have to take the people with us when we are working. So what was the problem? I have got only 15 minutes to go through the problems that we encountered over the last six years, but I will go as quickly as possible. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, has always said there is nothing new in politics, so it will not surprise anyone that in 1996 the then Howard coalition government faced a $96 billion gross debt problem and a $10 billion black hole. In 1996, because the previous Labor government reformed the way we did business in Australia and the way we acted as a government—and that was accepted in a bipartisan way—we had rising terms of trade. But the Howard government was still a government that made tough decisions. Australia faced the Asian financial crisis in those days. This was very local and we were very exposed. It was a very worrying time in the auction industry, in which I was employed, and in the finance industry. Yet the Howard government went into deficit for one year only. We acted, supported and then corrected. Fast forward to the economic conservatism of the Rudd-Gillard era, when the GFC hit they acted and supported but they did not correct. When Andrew Robb, the member for Goldstein, was the shadow finance spokesperson he gave a speech in here in which he said that what happens in the GFC is sort of like when you are doing your house. You pay your mortgage and you have a set number of expenses then one year you decide you are going to do a renovation. So for that year your expenses, your outgoings, go up. But the next year, because you are no longer doing the renovations, your expenses come down to roughly what they were. What the Labor government did under Rudd and Gillard was raise expenses and that was the new floor. That was the problem we encountered. That was the new starting point so that was the problem. When people come to me and say, 'I don't know what to believe', and 'Everyone can do projections', and 'Anyone can point the finger'—we have just seen how wonderful the Labor Party was in the last two speeches made by those members opposite, and yet we won 90 seats in the last election. I say to them: whether you believe our projections about gross debt going up to $667 billion is completely up to you. What no-one can deny is that over the past six years we had budget deficits totalling $191.5 billion, with the major expenses still to come on health, education, NBN and NDIS and no plan to pay for them. No-one can dispute those figures. So even if you accept those base figures, we are still left with a massive task quite similar to what was faced by the Howard government in 1996. We are borrowing $1 billion per month to pay the interest on the debt at the moment. What do we do about it? This budget brings our gross figure down from the projected $667 billion by nearly $300 billion to $389 billion. This budget addresses the issues of the ageing population. Even the opposition leader in his speech, when he referred to taxpayers and pensioners, said that when he was at school there were 7.5 taxpayers per pensioner and today there are five taxpayers per pensioner. By 2050 there will be 2.5 taxpayers per person over the ages of 65 and 70. That is not a shrinking workforce; that is a growing ageing population with challenges that have to be faced. This budget attempts to make the support the taxpayer extends to the community more sustainable, whether it be the pension, Medicare, health in general, education, defence: the lot has to be paid for by the taxpayers and the taxpayers' dollars. The Howard government did it before and was able to hand the benefits back to those who did the heavy lifting. Family tax benefit part B was initially installed by the Howard government because from 1996 through to 2001 the families of Australia did the heavy lifting. They paid off Labor's debt, and the then Prime Minister said, 'You deserve to be helped'. We are borrowing money to support a lifestyle. We cannot continue to do that. No-one likes losing a benefit, but when people sit down and actually start to think about it they understand why we are doing it. What we said we would do in the last election—every day for three years the now Prime Minister said at every opportunity and every press conference that we would axe the carbon tax, we would stop the boats, we would build the roads of the 21st century and we would fix the budget. The boats: well and truly over 150 days since a successful arrival. Check; we have done it, and saved $2.5 billion by closing down detention centres inside Australia. As a first order of business in this place, we axed the carbon tax in this House of Representatives; it is sitting over there. Those opposite will sit there and tell you they are concerned about people's cost of living, and yet the average family is saving $550 per year, going up again on 1 July because the carbon tax will be extended again on 1 July this year. It is still sitting over there; it can be passed today if members opposite choose to do so. The carbon tax repeal has been passed by us in this place, so that is a check. Roads: we have $50 billion worth of infrastructure projects—$25 billion worth of roads—approved under this government. There is $220 million alone on road projects in Townsville. The member for Grayndler will probably come in here and tell us that he actually turned the first sod on all of those, that was all done, all paid for previously. So we get down to fixing the budget. We went to the last election saying that we would extend a levy to the biggest companies to pay for a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme. We went to the last election saying we would raise a levy and support a raised levy to support the NDIS, so this notion about no new taxes—what do members opposite actually think we are going to do, win lotto? That we are going to take a system 25 each week and that is how we are going to get the budget back into order? We need to take the people with us. I have concerns in relation to the way Australia is going, and I share the concerns of some people in this House. There are conversations we have to have in relation to where this country is going. The NDIS is an idea whose time has come, but we must make it affordable. We cannot afford to live in a country where someone is walking down the street and a man is mowing his lawn in an NDIS T-shirt and no-one knows what it stands for. I worry that we have parents still talking about the people that they love the most, their children with a disability, and that they still have to describe them in the worst possible way to get the help they need. I truly believe that Senator Fifield is the right man for the job and I truly believe that this place is bipartisan in its approach. But I cannot help but think that we are still going to be heading down that same track, where parents are still going to be dreadfully exposed in the way they are going to have to explain themselves to get the help they need. I will know that that is fixed when parents can come to me and tell me that they are happy with the way it is going. I also share the concern about the timing of deregulation fees for the university sector. I have no problems with deregulation itself. I think that is a very healthy thing and I think the way we are going about it—extending it to TAFE students and to subdegree things and trade support loans to another 80,000 people—is a great idea. But you have third parties coming into the system now and they must be watched. We must make sure that we control not only the organisations but also the organisations that participate in that sector. We must have a very strong and effective authority. We cannot afford to see what happened in the VET sector—we saw an explosion of RTOs to more than 4,600 but more than 90 per cent of the results are still produced by less than 100 organisations—happen in our higher education sector. Again, I believe that Minister Pyne is the right person at the right time to take this debate forward. I believe that he is truly consultative with Universities Australia and with the education sector in general. I want to see the white papers on taxation and the Federation happen as quickly as possible, and I want the discussions to be as open and frank and free as possible. We have a chance in this place to fundamentally change our country for a long time. We are a vastly different place to what we were in 1901. I see kids up there behind the glass and they are watching us here. When you are older, I want to make sure that you are living in an Australia which is inclusive, I want to make sure that you are living in an Australia which is affordable, and I want to make sure that you are living in an Australia where you are not paying for the mistakes of my generation—where you are not paying for the profligacy of previous governments, because you kids deserve better. So I want to make sure we have those open and frank conversations and I want to make sure that we do the right thing by people. I want to see the red tape reduction practices undertaken by this government to be the catalyst for freeing up business and industry and not an exercise in cost-shifting to other forms of government. The Townsville City Council in my electorate of Herbert—which I sometimes have a fractious relationship with—have seen many areas of regulation cut from other levels of government and simply had the cost of compliance and the cost of regulation lumped onto them with no benefit. This red tape reduction must be driven through COAG so we do not see one level of government reducing costs and another level rising. We must make sure this is a coordinated approach. I want to see work done to the tender process for all government projects to make sure they support local government, local contractors and local communities. When Senator Arthur Sinodinos was in Charters Towers with me recently we heard a story about a local council out west of Charters Towers. The Flinders Shire Council had costed out a road at $9 million. It had to go to national tender. The cost came in at $27 million. The contractor who won it flew in their team, their workers, the camp—everything. They did the work and not one cent stayed in the local community. We cannot have a tender process where we are doing major jobs in places like Townsville where the only beneficiaries are McDonald's and the pie van. We want to make sure that our local contractors, our local people, are being looked after. We want to make sure that the money is going through the community. I want to see an aviation hub in Townsville. I want to see the C27J turboprop replaced with the Caribou based at RAAF Base Garbutt. It makes sense. I want to see the cost of production spread away from Defence and into the private sector. We talk a lot about Northern Australia and the white paper is to be handed down. I copped a bit of flak in Townsville because there weren't any projects in the white paper. We must get the foundations right and that means getting a baseline science right. That means backing CSIRO and backing James Cook University to make sure that we are looking at our freshwater options. Once we get the macro right, once we get the picture right, we can then develop. What I will not cop is being held accountable for some dodgy deal done between the member for Lilley and some Independent over a project that was absolutely stone motherless dead in 2011 and was still being kept in the federal budget for two years so they could throw a sling at the member for Herbert. I want to see us have a better relationship and continue to grow our relationship with Papua New Guinea. PNG's Prime Minister Peter O'Neill spoke in Cairns just last week and he said: 'Suddenly we are back on the map with Australia. It is great to see. Funnily enough, Papua New Guinea was visited by no less than three different prime ministers inside 12 months.' He said, 'I don't think we'll ever see that time again.' He understands the need for trade and he understands the need to grow it organically. I think we can learn a lot from Papua New Guinea. They are in the 14th year of economic growth. Their economy is expected to grow at 15 per cent. There is some serious business being done up there. We must be more proactive in getting them to participate in the development of northern Australia. Townsville is the perfect place for it. I do want to refer to the credibility argument that has been thrown down by those opposite. Last year in the budget reply speech, Tony Abbott, the then opposition leader, stared down the barrel of the camera and told people that we were axing the things from the mining tax—that there were things that would have to go because they were not affordable; that we would not be able to keep on spending the way we had. He told the people of Australia that we had to make some tough decisions, and we have. You have the opposition Treasurer now saying approximately 392 times that it was an unfair budget but he says nothing about what he is going to do! Can I tell you finally, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, when I walk down the street there are a lot of people concerned about the budget but not one person has said to me, 'You know, I want to go back to the glory days of the Rudd-Gillard government.' No-one is saying that ever. I thank the House. 13:14 Ms KING 00AMR Ballarat I too rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015 and cognate bills representing the Abbott government's federal budget. This is indeed a budget of broken promises and, in my area of health, one that launches a fundamental attack on the fabric of Medicare. The Prime Minister promised before the election that there would be no cuts to health. He didn't just say it once; he said it many, many times. He promised before the election that there would be no new taxes. At no time during the election campaign did the Prime Minister telling the Australian people that they would be paying more to see a doctor, more for their medicines, more to access a specialist and that he would gut funding for public hospitals, for prevention and for dental care. But that is exactly what the Abbott government has done in this budget. This is what this budget delivers to the Australian people: cuts to public hospitals, cuts to prevention programs, cuts to dental care, a GP tax and more expensive medicines. When the population is ageing and the rate of chronic illness is increasing, it is inconceivable that the government would want to make the changes that it does, particularly those putting a barrier in the way of people accessing general practitioners. Medicare has served Australia well for the past 30 years, but this government appears to want to erode its very fabric—universal access. When Bob Hawke as Prime Minister introduced Medicare all those decades ago, he warned that without it more than two million Australians faced potential financial ruin in the event of a major illness. Today that is not the case, because every Australian can rely on our universal health system, a universal insurance scheme that everybody contributes to according to their means, and that means that people can access health care on the basis of their need and not on the basis of their means to pay for it. If this Prime Minister gets his way he will be taking Australia back decades and putting millions of Australians in the same perilous position as pre-Medicare. I want to take each of the cuts within this appropriation bill in turn, starting with public hospitals. The first thing we saw was the ripping up of Labor's historic agreements that were reached with the states and territories in health, agreements which had largely ended the blame game when it came to the Commonwealth and states, and which had started to wind back the erosion of the Commonwealth's contribution to public hospital funding that had occurred under the Liberals. In fact, the Abbott government's own election policy document, a document that was very scant on detail in any case, did promise that a coalition government would support the transition to the Commonwealth providing 50 per cent of growth funding of the efficient price of the hospital services as proposed. This was part of the coalition's election documentation. What did we see after the election? Well, you will not find that promise on the coalition's website anymore. Amazingly, it has suddenly disappeared. So embarrassed is the coalition by this broken promise in health that it has taken its election policy off its website. And so ashamed is it of how badly it has broken this pre-election promise that, instead of providing the growth funding that was promised to the Australian public and promised to the states to run the public hospitals, this budget of broken promises cuts a whopping $50 billion from Australia's public hospitals. And it is no wonder that the Prime Minister is too embarrassed to meet with his state counterparts after this promise was so comprehensively broken. These are cuts that commence in just 35 days' time, on 1 July this year. Only last fortnight, the Treasurer told Australians: the fact is we are honouring the four years of the agreements in both hospitals and schools that we said we would honour; we are doing that. That is simply untrue. The Treasurer does not even know what is in his own budget. The cuts to hospitals start this financial year, and we know that that will put services at jeopardy. States are already talking about hospital bed closures. We know that there will be changes in emergency department waiting times, that there will be changes and blow-outs in elective surgery times, that there are hospital beds that will close and that nurses and doctors will not be employed or will be employed less. At every point in the system we see that this government plans to cut funding and to break its promises. In preventative health, the government is to rip up the $367 million agreement on preventive health funding. States and territories that entered into contracts for programs that are to start shortly are suddenly now finding themselves with a shortfall. This is coming at the same time as many states across the country have started to withdraw funding for preventive health programs as well, saying that they believe it is the role of the Commonwealth to engage in prevention. We have now seen with this budget that the Commonwealth is largely abdicating the field when it comes to health prevention. The National Partnership Agreement on Preventative Health is gone. Preventative health funding for programs to tackle obesity, alcohol abuse and smoking have been cut. We know the government does not care about preventive health because it is also planning to cut some $2.9 million from the national tobacco campaign. It is also axing, in a separate bill, the Australian National Preventive Health Agency, the agency charged with making sure preventive health is a priority. It works with states and territories to ensure that we do not duplicate effort, that we have a combined partnership agreement in order to get the maximum benefit for our preventative health dollar and that as a country we are actually tackling conditions that are preventable like diabetes and heart disease. The government does not seem to believe in these things. It is ripping down the preventative health website and the health star rating system and shutting down organisations like the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council. And I suspect there is a whole lot more to come in health space. These are short-sighted policy decisions that will take Australia's health system back decades. And of course then there are the government's plans to introduce the GP tax. The government wants to basically put a significant barrier, a pay wall, in the way of people accessing their GPs. So flawed is this policy, the Treasurer and Prime Minister do not actually understand how it works. Last week, during interviews, the Prime Minister and Treasurer both said to the Australian public that if you have chronic disease you will not pay this tax; it will not apply to you. It was a plainly wrong and incorrect statement. No-one is exempt from the government's GP tax. The facts the Treasurer relied upon to introduce this tax are also wrong. A fortnight ago, the Treasurer was out there again on ABC's Q&A saying that, on average, Australians visit the doctor 11 times a year. This is simply not true. In fact, Australia is bang-on the OECD average and the correct number is fewer than seven times. This is a tax based on a broken promise that no health policy expert has said is a good idea. The Australian Medical Association has said this is a very bad idea and is very bad policy. They Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association, the Royal Australian College of Emergency Physicians, the Royal Australian College of GPs—not necessarily known for radical campaigning—have actually started a #CoPayNoWay campaign, a significant campaign that is seeing hundreds of emails arrive in my inbox each day absolutely opposed to this government trying to put a barrier in the way of people accessing a doctor. The Consumer Health Forum, a not-for-profit organisation that is charged with representing consumers and advocating for consumers, has very clearly said this policy will impact very significantly on those with chronic conditions, those who are on low and middle incomes and on some of the most vulnerable Australians in the country. I went and visited an Aboriginal medical service just recently. The staff there told me that they cannot possibly charge this tax and that will mean that, for their service delivery, they will have to find an extra $350,000 each year just to continue to employ doctors to meet the demand they have within their service. It is a cost they will have to absorb within their own system. They are very concerned about what that will mean for services right the way across their community. All of these bodies have advised this government against this policy yet the government have determined that they will proceed with it. Not only will they proceed with the GP tax but they are also intending to tell states and territories that they should also impose a tax when people go to emergency departments. We have seen only one state to date, Western Australia, say that they would entertain such a thing. These are changes that the former vice president of the Australian Medical Association has said will take Australia's health system back more than 50 years. I think he knows something about it. He absolutely knows something about the health system which unfortunately this government appears not to. Not only will health care be less affordable and less accessible, the government is also ripping $270 million— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 4077 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS National Sorry Day 4077 13:30 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair The 26th of May is a significant date in our national calendar. Today we reflect on the profound grief and trauma experienced by members of the stolen generations as we mark National Sorry Day. National Sorry Day this year marks the 17th anniversary of the 1997 Bringing them home report which outlined the extent of forcible removal policies that had been used to separate Indigenous children from their families. It is an opportunity for each and every Australian to reflect and pay tribute to the stolen generations and their families, and to acknowledge the pain, grief and intergenerational impacts of forced removal policies, not only on the children that were taken but also on their families and communities. In 2008, the Australian government delivered the national apology on behalf of the nation. Kevin Rudd stood up and delivered it in this place. We said sorry for the pain and suffering caused by past government policies and practices, in particular to the stolen generations, who were robbed of families, language, culture and land. It was a watershed moment and an important step in our journey of healing and reconciliation. I would like to acknowledge the special place of the Healing Foundation and the vital role it continues to play in the ongoing efforts towards traditional healing and social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Healing is an important part of our national reconciliation journey and I encourage all Australians to come together to commemorate National Sorry Day. (Time expired) Beef Industry 4077 13:31 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia We have been talking a lot about getting on with the job of developing a stronger regional economy. And we can prove it. I am pleased to inform the House that the Australian government has recognised the significance of Australia's cattle industry in my electorate of Capricornia. The coalition government has delivered on a key election commitment to provide $2.5 million in funding to Beef Australia 2015. Beef Australia 2015 is one of the nation's premier cattle industry expos. It is held in Rockhampton and showcases the Australian industry to the world. Beef Australia benefits producers, processors and consumers. In 2012, Beef Australia attracted more than 85,000 people from Australia and 25 other countries. I thank the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, for his contribution to endorsing this event during a recent visit to Rockhampton. Beef Australia 2015 shows the government's commitment to building strong rural and regional communities. It cements the Rockhampton region as the beef capital of the nation. National Sorry Day 4078 13:33 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga Seventeen years ago today, the Bringing them home report was tabled in the Australian parliament. The report told the heartfelt and tragic stories of children who were denied the opportunity to know the love of their families. Between 1910 and the 1970s, between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of Indigenous children were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers. One of the recommendations of the inquiry was that an apology be given to acknowledge the terrible wrongs that had been done to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Labor made that apology the first item of business in 2008 when elected to government. As Indigenous affairs minister that day I will never forget the raw emotion of the Indigenous men and women who were present in the gallery—Indigenous people like Nanna Nungala Fejo, who told her story so that we could all better understand. Tomorrow is the beginning of National Reconciliation Week, a reminder that the journey towards Reconciliation has not yet been fully travelled. I hope we can all join together today and acknowledge the injustices of the past, and work together to close the gap and continue our campaign for Constitutional recognition. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Budget 4078 13:34 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro I rise today to note a recent visit by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a business in Queanbeyan, Server Racks Australia. It was great having a senior cabinet minister taking time out from a busy schedule to come and visit this firm in my seat of Eden-Monaro. I want to thank the business owner, Mr Bob Campbell, along with his senior team, Simon Dunphy and Mick Lloyd, for giving us a tour of their manufacturing business. It has been operating for around 30 years now and employs just under 50 people. Server Racks Australia combines state-of-the-art computer-controlled equipment with a multiskilled workforce and innovative manufacturing processes to produce commercial and endorsed racks and accessories for the IT industry. They took the opportunity to discuss with the foreign minister and me various business issues, in particular the challenges they face as a high-technology manufacturing firm. We were pleased to be able to advise that in the budget we have funded the Department of Finance to work with business to get better outcomes for Australian business in terms of accessing government contracts. Minister Bishop outlined some other important budget measures, including the fact that the government is offering young people an incentive to help them study a trade. The government is also offering businesses a $10,000 bonus to employ workers aged over 50. It is these sorts of policies that will boost local manufacturing in our region. Budget 4079 13:35 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Bendigo welfare agencies and not-for-profit organisations are speaking out against the harsh measures outlined in the Abbott government's first budget. Ken Marchingo, chief executive of Haven Home Safe, has said the federal budget will force poor people to do the heavy lifting while the rich completely escape from any changes. He says: What we've seen is ideology dressed as economics. What we've got is politics masquerading as policy. What we've seen in this budget is like an undergraduate university politics club in place of simple solutions for complex problems. I agree with Ken. In a modern, complex, pluralistic economy, bobbing around in an international sea of complexity and competing economies, beating up poor people is not the way to go forward. In the Abbott government's first budget we have seen changes to Youth Allowance and family tax benefit B. On these proposals, Ken said: The notion that people under the age of 30 are somehow so well progressed in their life that they can lose their job, meet their rent, meet their utilities, feed and clothe themselves whilst unemployed, without a shred of government assistance for six months. Who on earth are they kidding? These are the words of Ken Marchingo, who is the CEO of a not-for-profit organisation in my electorate. I agree with Ken and call on the government to rethink these changes now. Beef Industry 4079 13:37 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page A great event happened over the weekend, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, and you have probably heard about it—Beef Week 2014 began in Casino, New South Wales. I congratulate Stuart George and all his team on, once again, getting this great iconic event in our community off the ground. A lot of work goes into organising an event like this, as you would know. I want to take a bit of issue with the speech made earlier by the member for Capricornia. Mr Deputy Speaker, even though you are a Queenslander, you know that the beef capital of Australia is Casino—and do not listen to anything else. On Saturday night at the festival we had the crowning of Miss Beef Week. I congratulate Brooke Hancock, who is the Casino Beef Week Queen for this year, and the other six contestants. They were all winners and they would have all been great ambassadors for the festival and the town. On Sunday the festival moved to Evans Head. We had a great event down there organised by Brian O'Farrell. There was a parade and over the next week we are going to have fashion parades, rodeos and a lot, lot more. I encourage anyone who has not been to come along and experience the event. It runs for just over a week. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be very interested to know that the theme of Beef Week this year is Heroes and Villains. That is very interesting to say, because we all know where the villains are in this chamber—they are over that side. Budget 4079 13:38 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand At the last federal election, those opposite pulled off one of the biggest bait and switch operations in Australian political history. Australians know from the former member for New England that the Prime Minister was willing to do and say anything to get into office. Australians heard his promise on the night before the election: 'no cuts to health, no cuts to education'. And after $80 billion of cuts to health and education in this week's federal budget, Australians now know that they can never again trust a word this Prime Minister says to them. The bait of a benign Tory government that would protect funding for our hospitals has now been switched for a hook, ripping billions out of our health system. It is an understatement to call these changes 'cuts', because this is not temporary pain that will heal over a period of time. The federal budget is a shotgun blast to the Australian healthcare system, and one from which it will not recover easily. The impact in my electorate will be felt by all of the residents of Melbourne's west. Western Health—including the Western Hospital in Footscray, the Williamstown Hospital and the Sunshine hospital—stand to lose more than $58 million in national health reform payments alone. This funding is used to deliver emergency department services and admitted and outpatient services in these hospitals. The result of these cuts will blow out waiting lists for people in Melbourne's west and, like the Victorian state budget recently delivered by Denis Napthine, will leave sick Victorians on their own. The Prime Minister's healthcare deceit can be further seen in the $7 GP tax. After years of telling the Australian people that Medicare had no better friend than Tony Abbott, we now see the truth. I have a message for those opposite: Australians did not vote for this and they do not want it. The Australian people are no fools and you will pay at the next ballot. Lyons Electorate: Environment 4080 13:40 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons Recently I welcomed the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, to Longford, in my electorate of Lyons, specifically to launch Australia's first—and, until otherwise disproved, the world's first—carbon neutral brick. The brick was developed by Brickworks Austral Bricks team at Longford, which has a workforce of 22, led by general manager David Robertson. The brick kilns have been modified and are now fired using locally-sourced waste wood biomass, significantly reducing CO2 emissions. The annual reduction from 8,607 tonnes to just 215 tonnes of CO2 is equivalent to the annual output of 466 average Australian households. The company has initiated local energy abatement projects with the remainder of emissions offset through other approved voluntary abatement schemes. The certification audit covers all of the emissions generated along the supply chain, from firing the kilns to delivery of the final product to the consumer. This is a great example of Direct Action at work and is evidence that businesses will innovate and do not need to be whacked with a big stick in the form of a carbon tax to reduce emissions. Last year Brickworks Australia paid $3.4 million in carbon tax. But perhaps the most significant story here is about the role that wood has played. Wood is the most renewable of all our natural resources, and it is wood that has helped deliver this great result for consumers and for the environment. Woodward, Ms Rusty 4080 13:41 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra It is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to an incredible Canberran, Rusty Woodward, who passed away last month. Rusty was an active member of the Tuggeranong Community Council, the Tuggeranong 55 Plus Club, the Australian Lung Foundation, the ACT Lung Life Support Group and the Council on the Ageing. Rusty was the driving force behind the establishment of the Tuggeranong over 55 Plus Club's permanent home in the Tuggeranong Valley—a beautiful community facility that is a permanent reminder of Rusty's tenacity. Through her extensive work with COTA, Rusty initiated a survey of seniors in Canberra that formed part of a COTA submission to the Harmer review into pensions. Rusty, who herself had a serious breathing and lung condition, was also an advocate for clean air and worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the impact of residential wood smoke pollution on people living with a heart or lung condition in the Tuggeranong Valley and throughout Canberra. Last year I was proud to honour Rusty for her community service by unveiling a plaque in her name on the wall of the Tuggeranong Town Park as part of the Footsteps to Follow Centenary Project—a lasting tribute to a valuable and much loved member of the Tuggeranong Valley's community. It is difficult to believe, but Rusty only lived in Canberra for seven years. In that short time, she had a greater impact on our city than I think most residents could hope to have over the course of a lifetime. She was a shining example of the fact that illness and disability need not be an impairment to community service. Farewell, Rusty Woodward. May you rest in peace. Bennelong Electorate: Basil's Seafood Restaurant 4081 13:43 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Basil's Seafood Restaurant in Marsfield is celebrating 30 years of operation this year. In Bennelong we are fortunate to have many long-term successful businesses—and Basil's is a great example of hard work, investment and persistence. In 1984, business partners, Emmanuel and Basil, took a gamble on establishing a seafood restaurant in a relatively new commercial area of Sydney. Their motivation and vision gave them the ambition to invest time and money into building a prestige, licensed restaurant in an up-and-coming area. Basil's does not offer ocean views or an upmarket, exclusive address, but people come from near and far to enjoy the atmosphere, great service and consistently high standard of cuisine. Over the years Basil's has built up and maintained a vast, faithful and regular clientele. The restaurant is a four-time winner of the prestigious American Express Awards for Best Seafood Restaurant in New South Wales and a six-time winner of the Small Business Award. A decade ago Basil retired; however, Emmanuel and Magdaline continued the business with remarkable success. Thriving for 30 years in the local community where other restaurants have come and gone is a true testament to the hard work, great offerings and determination of the Basil's team. Congratulations, and I will see you soon. Volunteers 4081 13:44 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter There is no group in our community that is more worthy of our praise than those who volunteer in times of natural disaster or indeed accident. They might be in the Rural Fire Service, a local rescue squad, the SES or some other group. Particularly worthy are those who do so on a voluntary basis and, often in doing so, risk their lives through their endeavours. On Saturday I was very pleased to attend and participate in a ceremony which recognised more than 40 local SES volunteers in the Hunter region, many of whom were recognised for 15 years service and many of whom were recognised right through 30, 40 years service. One in particular, who is in fact these days a paid employee of the SES and has been some for some time, was recognised for 50 years of service: Greg Perry will be retiring this year. He joined the SES as a volunteer when he was 13 years of age—something you are not allowed to do these days; it is now 16 years—and will continue to act as a volunteer in the SES after his retirement in June this year. I want to thank Greg Perry for his outstanding service. I want to again thank all those who were acknowledged on Saturday for their dedicated service to the SES, particularly those who do so on a voluntary basis. Again, I pay tribute to everyone in my local communities who go out to help others as volunteers. Banking 4082 13:46 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes On behalf of the local community of Panania, I would like to express my concern and disappointment at the recent announcement that the Commonwealth Bank at Panania will close on 27 June. I would like to thank local residents Allen Reay and Paul Burgess for organising a community protest at Panania Diggers against this closure yesterday. I understand that the Commonwealth Bank has obligations to its shareholders but it also has obligations to its customers, especially its elderly customers, many of whom have been loyal to that bank and that branch for over half a century. I am sure the Commonwealth Bank can find some bean counter in one of their head offices in Sydney who could make an economic argument about why this branch should close. Have they actually costed the loss of community goodwill? Have they put a cost on the many loyal customers of the Commonwealth Bank that will close their accounts? And have they put a cost on the adverse effect that this will have on many small businesses in Panania that will be affected when the last bank in Panania closes? I am sure the Commonwealth Bank puts those costs on and, if they reconsider this issue, they could keep that branch open. If it is an issue with their landlord, get back to the negotiating table, do a deal and keep the Panania branch of the Commonwealth Bank open. Scullin Electorate: Whittlesea Interfaith Network 4082 13:48 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin On Saturday afternoon I attended an extraordinary event in my electorate organised by the Whittlesea Interfaith Network. The event was a forum entitled 'The courage, determination and faith in the journey of a refugee'. I was pleased be able to say a few introductory remarks at that forum, but what made it an extraordinary event were the stories that were told by three refugees who now live in the Scullin electorate: Ms Nasrin Khodadadi, an Iranian; Ms Ghada Marcus, a Chaldean originally from Iraq; and Mr Haran Thanabalasingam, a Tamil from Sri Lanka. These people in a room filled with people from the diverse faith communities that make up the northern suburbs—many Christian denominations, people of the Islamic faith, Hindus and others—shared their stories, powerful stories that took great courage to tell, of unimaginable cruelty, of great hardships overcome and a determination to make a contribution to this society. It is disappointing that debate about asylum and refugees in this place has such a low tone. In the community, however, people are willing to listen to stories and I feel that events like Saturday show a better way for us to become the community that Australia is at its best. O'Connor Electorate: Katanning Saleyards 4083 13:49 Mr WILSON 198084 O'Connor This Wednesday, 28 May, I will have the honour to represent the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Warren Truss at the official opening of the new Katanning saleyards in my electorate of O'Connor. Jointly funded by the federal and state governments, the $25.4 million Katanning saleyards project relocated and constructed new state-of-the art sheep saleyards that will inject an extra $15 million a year into the Wheatbelt and Great Southern regional economies. The Katanning saleyards are one of only two weekly sheep saleyards in WA that together account for around 94 per cent of all sheep sold through the saleyard system. It also represents the largest single economic driver within the Shire of Katanning, which is my home town, and provides substantial benefits to the town, the wider Great Southern region and fulfils a crucial role for the region's livestock industry. The new saleyards have 1,008 pens under four hectares of roofing, accommodating up to 35,000 sheep per sale day, and is the only facility in Australia with water available in all pens. I am proud to say that I had a small role in bringing the WA Premier and the Katanning saleyards committee together to make sure this vitally important piece of rural infrastructure got off the ground and, as a sheep producer, I can confidently say that this is a very important facility for our industry. I congratulate project managers, the Shire of Katanning, CEO Dean Taylor, and building manager Ernie Menghini and all the hardworking staff and contractors who worked on the construction of this outstanding facility. Disability Support Pension 4083 13:50 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Earlier this month I met with a community member, Ms Wen Jiang. Wen is 46 and has lived for 30 years suffering from rheumatoid arthritis—a condition that has not only had a crippling effect physically but in all areas of her life. Like 5,000 other members of my community, Wen receives the disability support pension, unable to work any longer due to her chronic medical condition. Lack of mobility often isolates her in her home. She suffers daily pain. She has had two hip replacements, a knee replacement and ankle surgery. She has disfigured hands and feet. Fusing in her neck causes nerve pain. Wen faces the possibility of spinal fusion. She will require more surgery in the future. Despite all this, Wen gives back to her community by volunteering at the Laverton Community Hub three days a week. Her pension buys the numerous necessary medications, the costly supplements, and her specially designed shoes. She wears second-hand clothes. Wen was concerned about the now confirmed GP tax, changes to the PBS and the pension. She felt compelled to come and speak to me to ensure I understood that she would not have chosen this life. I stand compelled today to put a face to people in receipt of the disability support pension who, although struggling in their day-to-day life, continue to make a valuable contribution to my community. Pie of Origin 4083 13:52 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra I have a very important event to draw to the attention of members of the House which happens in my electorate each year. I have spoken before of the strong competition that occurs between Queensland and New South Wales in the context of the State of Origin. I refer to another particular creation—that is, by Rob Pirina of the Pie of Origin. Since 2012, Rob Pirina of Glenorie Bakery has challenged Queensland bakeries to bake and sell as many pies as possible, with proceeds going to charity. In 2012, Glenorie Bakery and Old Fernvale Bakery raised $11,000 for the Ipswich floods in the electorate of my colleague the member for Wright. In 2013, Glenorie Bakery battled Quinneys pies and raised $4,000 for the Nightingale Pie Shop in North Queensland—in the order of $15,000 in two years. This year Queensland has not accepted the challenge, but Rob is still at it. He is baking pies to raise money for the Children's Hospital Medical Research Facility at Westmead. People should go to Glenorie or buy other pies to help support the Pie of Origin. Charlton Electorate: Sport 4084 13:53 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton I take this opportunity to acknowledge and pay tribute to the fine young athletes who last week were presented with the Local Sporting Champions Awards for the electorate of Charlton. I extend my sincere congratulations to Leanne Grevenitz, Nakita Jackson Bellah Pipe, Carsten Chapman, Thomas Holland, Alannah Dodd, Kaitlyn Dodd, Noah Abell, Sian Pickard and Dylan Grogan, as well as to the Westlakes District Netball Association. The Charlton sporting champions have excelled in cycling, baseball, hockey, tenpin bowling and netball. Many have represented at a state and national level in their chosen sports. The Charlton sporting champions are an impressive group of confident and engaging young people, are fine ambassadors for their sports and are a credit to their families, friends and school communities. I am sure I will see many of them on the back page of the paper in years to come. I would also like to acknowledge the parents, guardians and families of the sporting champions for their ongoing support and encouragement. It is really the families who make the sacrifices that allow young sporting champions to excel. Often their family holidays are trips to country sporting carnivals. Going to swimming training at six in the morning or after school dominates their lives and their family budget. It is worth remarking on this in the context of a budget that really attacks families. There will be a question mark over whether these families can be involved in these sports in future. Congratulations to all the local sporting champions and good luck in the future. Macular Degeneration Awareness Week 4084 13:55 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan This week, 25 to 31 May, marks Macular Degeneration Awareness Week 2014. It is an opportunity to raise awareness and to work together to reduce the incidence and impact of macular degeneration. The macula is in the centre of the retina, the light-sensitive layer of tissue at the back of the eye, and is responsible for the central, straight-ahead vision. Early symptoms include slightly blurred vision, the need for more light for reading and difficulty recognising faces until very close to the person. Treatment options are dependent on the stage and the type of the disease. Current treatments aim to keep the best vision for as long as possible and in some cases may provide vision improvement, but there is presently no cure. Early detection is vital in saving sight. Local Indooroopilly optometrist and constituent Dean Samarkovski promotes eye health, providing community services such as spectacles for veterans, government-funded spectacles and collecting donated glasses for Lions Club recycling. During Macular Degeneration Awareness Week, Dean's practice will have an information stand with details and free test cards on macular degeneration risks, prevention and treatment, as well as providing the public with access to an optometrist to answer any questions and concerns. I would like to thank Dean and his team for their community outreach. I encourage all Australians to maintain good eye health. Asbestos 4085 13:57 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway One of the more appalling cuts in the long list of appalling cuts by this government is the abolition of Australia's Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. Asbestos eradication, identification and treatment is such a topical issue in Western Sydney. I and members on this side represent the asbestos belts throughout Western Sydney and the Illawarra. You only have to look at a list of the New South Wales suburbs with most asbestos risk to see that three of them are located in the electorate of Greenway—Seven Hills, Lalor Park and Blacktown. You do not need to go back too far in the news to see examples of where asbestos eradication is the No. 1 issue for these suburbs. For example, on 14 April, the headline on the ABC News was 'Asbestos scare after building waste falls from truck at Old Guildford in Sydney's West': Fire crews have spent the night clearing up two tonnes of building material containing asbestos. Only on 15 May, there was the headline 'Asbestos scare shuts down Blacktown hospital upgrade works indefinitely'. We had tonnes of fill delivered to Blacktown hospital laden with asbestos. It is exactly these issues which this agency is tasked with ensuring do not happen. Too many people, particularly those in Western Sydney, and their families are at risk from asbestos-related diseases. The axing of this agency will not do anything to improve that statistic. Midland Public and Private Hospital 4085 13:58 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck Last Wednesday I visited the site of the Midland Public and Private Hospital with my friend and colleague the Hon. Alyssa Hayden MLC, member for the East Metropolitan Region. Together we toured the site of the joint federal-state funded public hospital being delivered by Saint John of God Health Care. I am particularly excited by this hospital which will be opening next year. This hospital will be a state-of-the-art facility which prioritises a patient's experience and wellbeing while providing the highest quality health care available to the residents in my electorate of Hasluck and the surrounding region. The Midland Public and Private Hospital is the first major hospital facility to be built in the Midland area for more than 50 years. It will provide a total of 367 beds—307 public beds and 60 private beds—with room for expansion in the future. The state and Commonwealth governments are investing a total of $360 million to construct the public hospital, with Saint John of God Health Care investing $70 million for the private hospital. While construction commenced last year, this was the first time I had been able to tour the site. I was impressed by the progress and with the quality of work being undertaken by Saint John of God Health Care, Hassell Architects and Brookfield Multiplex. This hospital will have over 50 per cent more beds than the current Swan District Hospital and will employ approximately 1,000 staff. I look forward to updating the House on the progress of exciting projects in my electorate of Hasluck in the very near future. Ride for Hope 4086 14:00 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I congratulate all those who were involved in the recent Ride for Hope event. I attended the closing ceremony of that event. It was run by Edge Church International. This important fundraiser raised money for Transform Cambodia and Childhood Cancer Association— The SPEAKER SE4 Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 4086 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I inform the House that the Minister for Agriculture will be absent from question time today as he is receiving medical treatment for a knee injury sustained over the weekend. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 4086 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 4086 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Today is National Sorry Day. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that he would be the Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs. His cuts of more than $500 million from Indigenous programs in the budget make this promise a complete joke. Why should Indigenous Australians suffer because of the Prime Minister's broken promises? 14:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah It is National Sorry Day and it is a perfectly appropriate question for the Leader of the Opposition to kick off question time with today. I am very pleased to be able to reassure the Leader of the Opposition that while we are making some savings in this area, as we are making savings across the board, we believe that by collapsing some 100 separate programs into five broad programs we can achieve efficiencies in service delivery that will mean, with somewhat less money, that we will achieve better outcomes. This is our objective: to achieve better outcomes for the Indigenous people of our country. What we are absolutely committed to doing is to ensuring that children go to school, that adults go to work and that people are safe in their own homes. These changes were thoroughly discussed with the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council. As anyone who has read Warren Mundine's speech given last weekend would know, the council is satisfied that the government are heading in the right direction. Budget 4086 14:02 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why it is necessary to address Labor's legacy of debt and deficit? 14:02 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Australia does have a fundamentally strong economy, but under the former Labor government the budget was fundamentally weak. So we had a fundamentally strong economy but a fundamentally weak budget. What this government is doing is fixing the budget to strengthen our economy—and didn't it need fixing! The former government, the Labor Party, inherited a $20 billion surplus and $50 billion in the bank, and they gave the people of Australia the six biggest deficits in our history. They gave us debt and deficit stretching out as far as the eye can see—$123 billion in cumulative projected deficits and $667 billion in projected gross debt. Thanks to the policies pursued by members opposite, this country is borrowing a billion dollars every single month just to pay interest on the borrowings. Under the policies of members opposite, within a decade that mean $3 billion would have to be borrowed every single month—enough to fund the Western Sydney infrastructure package, which this government are getting on with. You cannot keep putting the mortgage on the credit card, which is what members opposite have done. This government did not create the problem, but we are shouldering responsibility for fixing it. Under us, instead of a $30 billion deficit in 2017-18, the deficit will come in at under $3 billion and debt will be $300 billion less under the policies that we announced in the budget. This is what the government was elected to do. We were elected to take the tough decisions necessary to get this country back on track and that is exactly what we are doing. Every day before the election, we made it crystal clear what we were doing: we would stop the boats, we would scrap the carbon tax and we would build the road to the 21st century and we would get the budget back under control, and that is precisely what this government are doing. Budget 4087 14:05 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House how many children whose families currently receive family tax benefit part B will lose the payment and suffer because of his cruel budget cuts? 14:06 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah We were absolutely crystal clear on budget night that we were changing the conditions for the receipt of family tax benefit part B, that we were reducing the primary income earner's income from $150,000 to $100,000 because we do want to bear down on so-called middle-class welfare— Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The answer to this question is a number. The Prime Minister can let the parliament know what that number is or concede that he does not know. The SPEAKER SE4 The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. He knows very well that he cannot dictate the way in which the answer is given but merely say that it must be relevant. The Prime Minister will continue his answer being relevant to the question. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 We support choice. We absolutely support choice. But there is a limit to how much taxpayer support we can give once the youngest child is at school. There is a limit to that. We were absolutely up-front in the budget about this. We must live within our means. Living within our means means that handouts with borrowed money cannot continue in the way members opposite want. The SPEAKER SE4 I call the honourable member for Bass. Ms Macklin PG6 I seek leave to table a document. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Bass does have the call. Ms Macklin PG6 I seek leave to table a document. The SPEAKER SE4 You had to be a bit quicker up. I will be making a statement at the end of question time about the tabling of documents by private members. But, in the meantime, because I have not yet made it, I will ask the member for Bass to take his seat for a moment, and you can seek leave at this stage. Ms Macklin PG6 Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table estimates question on notice No. 233 that shows more than one million children are going to lose money as a result of your budget. Leave not granted. Budget 4088 14:08 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of reducing debt and getting the budget back on track? 14:08 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I thank the honourable member for Bass for his question. I recognise that he, like most other Australians, knows that we have to do something about the legacy of $667 billion of debt that would have been in place had we not taken the decisions that we took on budget night. It is about getting the budget back on track. That was one of our key election promises: to fix the budget, to fix the mess that Labor left. At the moment we are paying a billion dollars a month—one billion dollars every month—in interest on the debt that Labor has left. This would be $2.8 billion a month in 10 years time if nothing is done. That is $2.8 billion a month in 10 years time if nothing is done about the state of the budget. Under the legacy of the previous government, each Australian's share of the interest would be $9,400 over the next 10 years. In four years' time alone, if nothing is done, every single Australian will be paying the equivalent of $740 in interest alone on Labor's debt—$740 each. To put that in perspective, as the IMF identified, we were left with a legacy of the third fastest growth in net debt of the surveyed countries by the IMF. What does that mean? That means that, ultimately, as interest rates rise, the punitive measures a future government would need to take to fix the budget would be more dramatic. We need to take action now. We must take action now, because the pain associated with taking action in the future would be far greater if we went down the path that the Labor Party is advocating—that is, do nothing. When you do nothing you become a victim of circumstances. When you take action you have at least a chance to control your destiny. The coalition is firmly of the view that we must take action now to repair the budget and to reduce the level of debt burden that is being passed on to future generations of Australians. Budget 4088 14:11 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. There are 8,429 families currently receiving family tax benefit B in the seat of Capricornia. How many families with children over the age of six in Capricornia will have their payments cut as a result of this budget? Why should these families suffer because of the member for Capricornia's failure to stand up against the Prime Minister's cuts? 14:12 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I absolutely accept that if you go through the budget figures, if you go through the budget announcements, you can find some people who will be impacted by budget decisions. I absolutely accept that. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The deputy leader has asked her question. She seriously wants an answer, so I would ask for silence so it can be heard. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Shock! Horror! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has discovered that some people will be impacted by budget decisions. Of course some people will be impacted by budget decisions. We could not go on as a nation giving people borrowed money that our nation cannot afford and that the government cannot sustain. Because of the pseudogenerosity of members opposite, this country was in an absolutely unsustainable situation— Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Jagajaga is warned! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 borrowing a billion every single month just to pay interest on the borrowings. That situation was simply unsustainable. The thing about the budget is that it is a contribute-and-build budget. High-income earners will pay the deficit levy. Members of parliament will face a pay freeze. Motorists will pay the fuel excise indexation. Everyone is making a contribution so that our country will be better off in the long run, and that is what we were elected to do: to get the budget back under control so that our country will be better and stronger in the long run. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about the welfare of the people of Capricornia, then scrap the carbon tax. That will save every household in Capricornia $550 a year. Asylum Seekers 4089 14:14 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. A young man, Reza Berati, came to our shores seeking our help. While in this government's care he was beaten to death. Why can't you guarantee the safety of people in your care? And do you accept any responsibility for Reza Berati's death? 14:15 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. As he will be aware, I have just released the Cornall report, which goes into the full account, as best as is able to be determined, of what happened on that terrible and tragic night. In that report you will find detailed accounts from over 300 transferees of what occurred that night, as well as from many others who were involved in providing services and various things on that evening. It is important that, through our partnership with the Papua New Guinean government, we meet our objectives and our undertakings with them to provide the support to ensure that that facility is well run and has all the appropriate safety measures in place. It is important that we continue this policy, because there seems to be an emerging theme here in this debate, which says that, because the boats are stopping, we can somehow ease off and maybe we should relax the policies. That is exactly the sort of thinking that I know comes from the Greens and from many of those opposite, which led to the Howard government's measures being taken away in the first place, which led to 50,000 people arriving on over 800 boats and which led to almost 1,200 deaths at sea, which are not occurring now because this government had the backbone to put in place the border protection policies that are saving thousands of lives. The Deputy Leader of the Greens may not know that, on 4 September last year, a young man, an asylum seeker who was released into the community under the policies favoured by the Greens, was stabbed to death in his apartment by, allegedly, another asylum seeker. I wonder whether the member opposite is going to take responsibility for that. But I am not asking him to do that, as he has sought to do by implying that to this government today. This government have taken the decisions that we needed to take on our borders that those opposite did not have the guts to do, did not have the wit to do, did not have the will to do and, as a result, it was cost, it was chaos and it was tragedy. That is what occurred under the watch of those opposite, ably supported, encouraged and pushed on by the Greens to drive them into the policies that led to the carnage that occurred on their watch. I would encourage everyone in this parliament to look at the report that we have released. What you will see in there is a policy that was announced by the previous government, to which they were dragged kicking and screaming, and their implementation, as always, was just never up to the job. Budget 4090 14:18 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Treasurer. What challenges does the Treasurer face in repairing the budget? 14:18 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. He recognises, as I recognise, that the biggest problem that we have in trying to fix the budget is the person and the people who were responsible for the mess: the Australian Labor Party. I am glad to say to the Australian people, to the Prime Minister and to everyone that, as a result of our budget, we can reduce the debt legacy left by Labor by nearly $300 billion. But the impediment remains: the Australian Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition—a massive impediment. The first challenge they have is to recognise that there is a problem. Two weeks ago and in the weeks before that, they were saying to the Australian people: 'There's no train wreck here; there's no problem. It's all okay. Everything would have been fine if we had been in government. It would have surged back to surplus.' You probably would have had the member for Lilley stand up here again and promise four years of surpluses, if Labor had been re-elected. Of course, we knew that was never going to happen. The only problem was that the Labor Party did not know. So now we have to deal with the problem and we are getting on with dealing with the problem. We have put in place savings measures that actually, over time, will not only reduce the legacy of debt and the legacy of higher interest payments but also give us a fair chance to give back to the Australian people the taxes that they pay so that we can continue to strengthen the economy and create more jobs. But the problem is that, like a sun that is gradually coming up on the horizon, Labor is starting to work out that there is a problem. In his budget-in-reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'There is a budget task'—a task! And the shadow Treasurer at the National Press Club said, 'Yes, there needs to be budget repair.' But the fact is that they are standing in the way by opposing $40 billion of savings—and $5 billion are savings they took to the last election as their promises. So Labor are not only trying to prevent us from keeping our promises; Labor are trying to prevent us from keeping their promises. The bottom line is that it adds to the tally. Labor are opposing their savings, they are opposing our savings and they are opposing the savings that are going to fix the budget. Sooner or later, they need to accept responsibility. After they accept responsibility, they need to provide an alternative. A credible Leader of the Opposition, with any personal integrity, would offer an alternative. Budget 4091 14:21 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, there are 10,178 families currently receiving family tax benefit B in the seat of Page. Prime Minister, how many families with children over the age of six in Page will have their payments cut? Why should these families suffer because of the member for Page's failure to stand up against the Prime Minister's cuts? 14:22 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah It is pretty clear what members opposite are doing today. They are going through the budget striving to find losers. Every Australian was the loser from Labor's six years of incompetence. Every Australian will be the poorer because of Labor's six years of incompetence. This government knows that a lot of people are doing it tough, we know there is not an electorate in the country where there are not some people doing it tough, but we owe it to those people to get this economy back into shape and you cannot fix the economy without fixing the budget. That is what this government is doing. Every single month the people of Page are contributing to having to pay $1 billion in interest. That is $1 billion in dead money, that is $1 billion that could have been spent on fixing the Pacific Highway. That is the kind of thing we would be able to do sooner and better but for Labor's six years of incompetence. If the member for Richmond—I think I called her the member for Page earlier; we have a very good member for Page, a much better member for Page than we have member for Richmond—is serious about taking the burdens off the families of Richmond, tell her leader to scrap the carbon tax. If she is worried about promises, tell her leader to let this government keep its promise to scrap the carbon tax and scrap it now. Budget 4091 14:24 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck My question is to the Minister for Education. Minister, how does the budget restore a fair balance between the contributions students and taxpayers make to the cost of higher education? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Some silence on my left. I call the honourable the Minister for Education. 14:24 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I am pleased to get a question from the member for Hasluck on higher education. This budget is all about spreading more opportunity to students around Australia to get the chance to have a higher education qualification. How are we doing that? We are doing it in three ways: through the biggest Commonwealth scholarships fund in Australia's history; by uncapping the diplomas and associate degree courses that universities, typically regional and rural universities, offer so that thousands more Australians will get the chance to do a pathways program into a higher education degree; and by expanding the Commonwealth Grants Scheme to nonuniversity higher education providers. These three measures on their own inject an adrenaline shot of competition into the system. More importantly, they will expand higher education opportunities to 80,000 more students around Australia. In return, we are asking students to make a contribution to their own tuition fees. We are asking them to contribute, for those who enrol since 14 May, around 50-50 of the cost of their higher education. At the moment students contribute on average around 40 per cent, so that more than 60 per cent of Australians without a university degree are paying almost 60 per cent of the cost of those students who are at university and those students will go on to earn 75 per cent more than people without a university degree on average over the rest of their lifetime. So we think the current balance is not getting it right. We think a 40-60 balance between the taxpayer and the student is not fair to the taxpayer and all we are asking students to do is make a 50-50 contribution. I think that is a very fair contribution. You want to remember, Madam Speaker, that they can borrow every single dollar up-front and pay it back when they earn over $50,000 a year and only pay up to two per cent of their income once they start paying it back. It is a very generous deal. But do not just take my word for it. The shadow Assistant Treasurer, the member for Canberra, wrote a book called Battlers and Billionaires. He and the government are on the side of the battlers, the rest of the Labor Party are on the side of the billionaires. He said on page 79: 'Compared with someone who finished year 12 but has no postschool qualification, a diploma boosts earnings by nearly 20 per cent while a bachelor's degree boosts earnings by more than $1 million over a lifetime.' So the member for Canberra gets it. He gets the fact that he and the government are trying to rebalance the contribution that students and taxpayers make, while the Labor Party continues to stand up for students, not taxpayers. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 4092 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:24 The SPEAKER SE4 We have in the gallery with us today the Malaysian young political leaders delegation. We make you most welcome. We also have on the floor of the House with us a delegation from the Congress of the Republic of Peru and the delegation leader, Mr Carlos Bruce. We make you most welcome as well. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 4092 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 4092 14:28 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Prime Minister: 13,240 age pensioners in the seat of Reid will have their concessions cut for their water bills as a result of the Prime Minister's cruel budget. Why should these pensioners pay for the member for Reid's failure to stand up against the Prime Minister's cuts? 14:28 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Concessions are essentially a matter for the state governments and for local councils. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence to listen to the answer. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 My understanding is that of pensioner concessions some 90 per cent of the burden is quite properly and appropriately carried by the state government. If I could address the shadow minister's general point: yes, we are asking some sacrifices of our people. Ms Macklin PG6 Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. It is very clear— The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. The member will resume her seat. Ms Macklin PG6 in the budget papers the government is taking 1.3— The SPEAKER SE4 I ask the member to resume her seat and I would point out that once you add your political tag you open the question up for a very wide range of answers. I call the Prime Minister. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 We are asking for some sacrifices, and everyone is making a contribution. As I said before, high-income earners are paying the deficit levy, members of parliament are forgoing a pay rise, motorists are bearing fuel excise indexation. This is a budget where all of us need to make a contribution so that all of us can be better off in the medium and long term. The sad truth is that every single Australian was a loser because of the incompetence of the former government. We did not cause the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite gave us. Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Grayndler will desist, as will the member for Gorton. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 We are shouldering the responsibility of fixing it because that is what the Australian people expect of us, and we will not let them down. Mr Bowen DZS Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER SE4 Sorry, I am calling the member for Flynn. Mr Bowen DZS I am seeking the call. I seek leave— The SPEAKER SE4 I am sorry, I am calling the member for Flynn. Medicare 4093 14:31 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Minister for Health. How will the government strengthen Medicare? What challenges does the government face in ensuring a sustainable health system? 14:31 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question and for his great interest in improving the health system in Central Queensland. It is very obvious to the Australian public by now that the coalition government is not only the greatest friend that Medicare has ever had but we are the only friend in this place that Medicare has. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my left. Mr DUTTON 00AKI The Australian public is quickly working this out, and I will tell you the reason why. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The minister will resume his seat. We will have silence. Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Chifley is included in that. The Minister for Health has the call and we will have some silence to listen to him. The Minister for Health. Mr DUTTON 00AKI The changes we make in this budget will make Medicare sustainable for a generation to come. Labor's approach was to rack billions of dollars up onto the credit card, to give services away for free, pretending that that could happen forever. Let me say this: for a population of 23 million people, Medicare provides 263 million free services per year, and Labor was tracking Medicare onto an unsustainable basis. What Labor did to Medicare is what they did to the Australian economy: they racked up debt and put it on an unsustainable basis. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Members will desist. The Leader of the Opposition will desist. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Nobody implores me; I can hear the noise myself. Mr DUTTON 00AKI What we will do in this model is have $5 of a co-payment going into a $20 billion medical research future fund to find the cures of tomorrow and to make sure that we can have a sustainable health system going forward. Two dollars of the $7 goes back to GPs— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Minister for Health will resume his seat. This place is sounding like a rabble. Now, there is disagreement on this point, which is quite obvious. However, there are the people listening as well, and they want to be able to hear the answer. I would ask for some silence so that we can conduct this question time in some sort of decorum. I call the Minister for Health. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Ten years ago we were spending $8 billion a year on Medicare; today we are spending $20 billion. It is projected in 10 years to go to $34 billion. Over the last five years we have increased expenditure by 42 per cent. You can live in this fantasy land that Labor is in, that somehow you can continue to rack up $1 billion each month of borrowed money to pay off the interest bill alone. You can pretend that, with an ageing population, you can give all of these free services away. Or you can take a responsible approach and you can put Medicare on a sustainable path. That is what this government have done. We will make sure, as our population ages, as we march towards a country that is going to have 7½ thousand people diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer's per week, that we can afford to— Ms King 00AMR How are they going to get a diagnosis if they cannot afford it? The SPEAKER SE4 There is no decorum in that interjection. The member for Ballarat will desist. Mr DUTTON 00AKI provide services for those people. That is the contrast between that incompetent opposition, who were dreadful government for this country, and this government, who will set up Medicare for generations to come. We will make sure we put Medicare back onto a sustainable path. People of the Australian public, I promise you, will not be tricked by this incompetent opposition. Medicare 4094 14:35 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week the Prime Minister said on 3AW that an average person— Mr Dutton interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Minister for Health will desist. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG after 10 visits would not be paying the GP tax. That is what the Prime Minister said last week. Will the Prime Minister repeat today what he said on radio last week and, if he will not, does that mean that the Prime Minister does not even know the detail of his own cuts and he is out of touch with hurting ordinary Australians with his dreadful GP tax? The SPEAKER SE4 I call the Prime Minister. Mr Shorten interjecting— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. The Prime Minister has the call. Those on my right will desist as well. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr Shorten 00ATG Madam Speaker, why don't you ever correct them? The SPEAKER SE4 I just did. If you had been listening, I just did. Mr Shorten 00ATG That is the first time in a long time they have got— The SPEAKER SE4 Oh, really? Have you not been listening today? I would ask you to withdraw those comments. Mr Pyne 9V5 Don't bully the Speaker. The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the House will desist. Mr Shorten 00ATG I withdraw. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 We will have silence. The Prime Minister has the call. The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, on the comment made by the Leader of the House: there are many allegations that get made around this place, but to claim that you are capable of being bullied is extraordinary, and the Leader of the House should apologise. The SPEAKER SE4 Well, coming from somebody who called me a witch, I find that extraordinary. I call the Prime Minister. The Manager of Opposition Business—does he want to reiterate? Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, given that it is a Harry Potter reference—every character in those novels is either a witch— The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. Resume your seat. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, every character— The SPEAKER SE4 Resume your seat! I am sorry; I do not accept that as an apology. The Prime Minister has the call. 14:37 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah The Leader of the Opposition has asked me to repeat something. Let me repeat this: … there's a better way of operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all. As economists have shown, the ideal model involves a small co-payment—not enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to make you think twice before you call the doc. And the idea is hardly radical. Why is the Leader of the Opposition embarrassed by this? Mr Shorten 00ATG Madam Speaker, on a point of order— The SPEAKER SE4 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Shorten 00ATG I am embarrassed for our Prime Minister; that is all. In terms of what I asked the Prime Minister— The SPEAKER SE4 That is not a point of order. What is the point of order? Mr Shorten 00ATG The point of order is on relevance, of course, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER SE4 Well, not 'of course'. Mr Shorten 00ATG I asked him about the GP tax and what he said last week. Why does this Prime Minister find it so hard to say the same thing two weeks in a row? The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the Opposition has completed his point. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I was asked about the co-payment and I am answering about the co-payment. Let me repeat: … there's a better way of operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all. As economists have shown, the ideal model involves a small co-payment—not enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to make you think twice before you call the doc. And the idea is hardly radical. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Wakefield will desist! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 It is hardly radical, because it is the shadow Assistant Treasurer. That is the shadow Assistant Treasurer. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Those on my right will desist as well! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Why wouldn't the shadow Assistant Treasurer have said this, because the father of the co-payment was none other than— Mr Bowen DZS Madam Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: the question was about what the Prime Minister said last week, not what the member for Fraser said— The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. Resume your seat. You know perfectly well there is only one point of order on relevance permitted per question, and it had already been taken. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Those on my right will desist! The Prime Minister has the call. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I congratulate the shadow Assistant Treasurer! But, while what he said was right, it was hardly original. It was hardly original because the father of the co-payment was none other than Prime Minister Bob Hawke himself—none other than Bob Hawke himself. Now, Bob Hawke was a real leader. Bob Hawke was a real reformer. This man is no Bob Hawke. This is right and fair and proper, and that is why it will happen under this government. Asylum Seekers 4097 14:40 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Would the minister tell the House what benefits have flowed because of the government's policies to strengthen our borders? 14:41 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Grey for his question. It is great to see him here in this House. He has been doing an extraordinary job. We came into parliament together and he has been an outstanding member. It is good to be serving with him. I can tell the member for Grey that one of the consequences of the coalition's strong border policies—where we have done exactly what we said we would do—is 158 days without a single successful people-smuggling venture to Australia. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Wakefield is warned! Mr MORRISON E3L I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that it means there have not been deaths at sea, as a result of this policy over the more than five months where we have prevented those ventures from coming to Australia. I can tell the House that it is saving this budget $2½ billion—in this budget—whereas, under the previous government, it was blow-out after blow-out and a total of more than $11½ billion, which is approaching the annual interest bill that those opposite left us: we have to borrow $1 billion every month just to pay back the interest on their debt legacy. And 20,000 places have been freed up—20,000 places have been freed up both this year and over the forward estimates to go to those people overseas who are waiting for a place. I notice those opposite have gone very quiet. A hush has come over the House. They are stunned into silence by their own failure, because as I look across their frontbench what I see is a chorus of failure when it comes to immigration. We have two previous immigration ministers, one being my current penpal, the shadow minister for Nigeria, who wants to put it to us that we should be trying to release people convicted of drug-trafficking out into the community. That was his petition to me. That was his petition. And, if he does not cop to that, he has to tell his constituents that when he makes representations to ministers he does not mean it! He does not mean it at all. It is all clayton's work from the former minister. Now those opposite pretend to lecture this side of the House, having stuffed up immigration, about how we should be running the finances of this country. There is a very real risk, the only risk to our borders going forward, and that is if there is a change of policy, and the only way that is going to happen is if that mob ever sits on this side of the House again. Already they are creeping back to doing exactly what Kevin Rudd did when he was Prime Minister and say: 'The boats are stopping. We don't have to do it anymore. We can relax the policies.' That same thinking is creeping over them now. They will never turn boats back where it is safe to do so. They will never have the backbone to do what we need to do on our borders. They never did and they never will. Budget 4097 14:44 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement last week on ABC's Q&A, telling a chronically ill person that they would not be hit with the GP tax, and the Australian Medical Association's response that the Treasurer 'either does not understand or is misusing the statistic or is lying'. If the Treasurer can't even get the details of his broken promise on GP tax right, why should Australia's sick and vulnerable pay for his broken promises? 14:44 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I do not accept the premise of the question. What I said was absolutely right. I refer the shadow minister to this outstanding booklet, the budget for 2014 on health, which says: Patient contributions will not be expected for many GP services that target patients with particular health needs, such as Health Assessments and Chronic Disease Management items. I know that he does not read a lot, but if he read this document he would see that what I said the other day was absolutely right. As the Prime Minister said, there is a great deal of hypocrisy about this line from the Labor Party. Bob Hawke was a real leader of the Labor Party. He had principles. He actually delivered a surplus, the last Labor surplus. Bob Hawke is a man of principle. He is a man that calls it as he sees it, and he said back in 1991 that he wanted to introduce a co-payment of $3.50 for each visit to the doctor and he was doing so because at that time the average number of visits to the doctor was about four per year. Now it is about 11 per year according to the Commission of Audit. The bottom line is that Labor thinks that this is a free ride. Mr Shorten interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Order! The Leader of the Opposition will desist. Mr HOCKEY DK6 Labor used to believe in things. They used to have principles. Once upon a time they understood that you have to believe in things and have principles and undertake the actions in government that make sure that a safety net is sustainable. For example, if you believe the rhetoric and fearmongering from the Labor Party, you would think that a $7 co-payment by pensioners was the end of the road for 10 visits to the doctor a year. But under Labor, pensioners, when they got a script from the doctor, had to pay $6 for the first 60 scripts each year. So under Labor's modern integrity and under the principles that they believe to be true today, they say, no, pensioners should not pay for 10 visits to the doctor each year but they should pay for the first 60 scripts that the doctor issues. That is the hypocrisy of Labor. Not only were they the inventors of the co-payment—not only did they come up with it, and they invented the PBS co-payment—not only that—it is Labor that wanted to claim that Medicare was all their idea. Yet everything they are doing is undermining Medicare. The coalition is the best friend Medicare has— Opposition members interjecting— Mr HOCKEY DK6 because we want Medicare to be sustainable and the Labor Party does not. Road Infrastructure 4098 14:47 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. How will the government's Infrastructure Investment Program support the construction and maintenance of roads across Australia? 14:48 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay I thank the member for Solomon for her question. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who in his budget reply speech spoke about forgotten people on a number of occasions and never mentioned rural Australia once— Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Order! If the member for Wakefield has one more utterance, he will leave. Mr TRUSS GT4 that is not where the member for Solomon comes from. She understands regional Australia and why it is necessary for us to invest in infrastructure not just in our biggest capital cities but also in provincial and regional communities, and she will be particularly pleased about the coalition government's $600 million commitment to roads in the Northern Territory. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Order, the member for Grayndler will desist! Do you want to be warned? Mr TRUSS GT4 Our commitments will make a real difference to much of the Territory's roads program. There is $70 million in Darwin for the Tiger Brennan Drive duplication, a project that has been underway for quite some time. This will take it some steps further forward. Mr Snowdon interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Order, the member for Lingiari! Mr TRUSS GT4 I have noted the member for Lingiari's interjection. When I was in the Northern Territory last week, I heard him comment on the adequacy of road funding in the Northern Territory and, to his credit, he acknowledged the previous Labor government had not— Mr Albanese R36 On a point of order, Madam Speaker, in order to be relevant the minister must nominate a single project in the Northern Territory which is new. Any one will do—any one at all. Even a dollar will do! The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. Mr TRUSS GT4 I would be delighted to name dozens of projects across Australia, scores of projects which Labor had not had anything to do with. But since this question is about the Northern Territory, how about the Outback Way. Labor never spent a cent on the Outback Way. It was not prepared to spend anything on the Outback Way, and we are committing $20 million to the Outback Way in the Northern Territory. That is just one Mr Snowdon interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Lingiari is warned! One more and you are out! Mr TRUSS GT4 While I was in the Territory I also announced the $77 million Northern Territory Roads Package, which Labor had never funded and which will provide significant upgrades to the major roads of the Territory, and then $90 million to the Regional Roads Productivity Package. Labor is going to claim that this is its own, but in reality it did not spend any of it. The projects that it announced like the Santa Teresa Road and the Port Keats Road were not funded. I visited the Santa Teresa Road and not a thing was done. Nothing had happened. But with Chief Minister Giles I was able to announce the start of construction on that project and the Port Keats Road and $90 million of major roads upgrading in the Territory. We are getting on with the job. We are delivering for the Territory and the rest of Australia the roads network of the 21st century, roads they deserve that Labor never delivered. Budget 4100 14:51 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement by the Treasurer of New South Wales that the cuts to pensioner concessions were a cruel and callous cut which would burden pensioners. Why should pensioners suffer cruel and callous cuts to their concessions because of the Prime Minister's broken promises? 14:51 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Let me just remind the member for Charlton of the commitments that this government made pre-election: to stop the boats, to stop the carbon tax— Mr Stephen Jones A9B Tell that to Mike Baird! Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Order! There will be silence on my left! Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 And that includes the deputy leader! Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 And the member for Chifley! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 The commitments that we made pre-election were to stop the boats, to scrap the carbon tax, to build the roads of the 21st century and to get the budget back under control. Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 If the member for Adelaide no longer wants to represent her constituents in this chamber, she will keep it up. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 There are no cuts to health, and every single dollar of saving in health is being reinvested—every single dollar of saving in health is being reinvested. And when it comes to public hospitals, public hospital funding increases by nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that and six per cent in the fourth year—a massive increase. This is why, as the Treasurer says, the states are $9 billion better off as a result of this budget. Every Australian, in the long run, is better off under this budget because if you get the budget under control—if you fix the budget—you fix the economy and that makes every single Australian better off. If the member for Charlton is so anxious about things in the budget, and if he really wants to help the pensioners of his electorate, he should tell his leader to scrap the carbon tax now. Scrap the carbon tax now, and that would make every single household in the electorate of Charlton $550 a year better off. Age Pension 4100 14:54 Ms SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister confirm that the pension will continue to increase every six months? What other measures is the government taking to reduce the cost of living for all Australians? Dr Leigh BU8 Ask Jim Longley! The SPEAKER SE4 Order! The member for Canberra will desist! 14:54 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies Can I commend the member for Gilmore for her great work on behalf of the constituents of Gilmore since she has been a member and, indeed, prior to being a member of this place. It has been a very consistent effort over a long period of time. As the member for Gilmore says, and contrary to what the Labor Party is claiming, the pension in Australia will continue to increase every six months. Twice yearly, the pension will continue to go up. Indeed, in March, just a month or two ago, under this government, the pension increased by up to $15.70 for singles per fortnight and up to $11.90 per fortnight for each member of a couple. That is almost $12 for each member of a couple and almost $16 for singles. And the pension will increase again this September. So, contrary to the claims of the Labor Party, who are running around the country suggesting that somehow pensions will not increase, they actually increased in March, they will increase in September, they will increase in March and September next year and they will continue to go up. But more than that, the increase of the pension in March was actually driven by the CPI—by the consumer price index—because of the wage levels. Indeed, from September 2017 we will do exactly that and ensure that the pension continues to increase by the CPI. So not only will the pension continue to increase every six months this year, so too will the pension supplement. It is currently up to $1,635.40 per year for singles and $2,464.80, again per year, for couples. That will increase again in September, along with the pensions themselves. So, this government is acting on cost of living for senior Australians and pensioners. They keep the energy supplement, worth up to $360 per annum for singles and $546 per annum for couples. Last October we reduced the deeming rates, and that has an immediate impact in terms of part pensions in particular. And we have done something which the Labor opposition never did, and that is we have indexed the Commonwealth seniors health card. So we are concerned for the cost of living of seniors and pensioners in Australia. This stands in stark contrast to the Labor Party, that ran a Ponzi scheme with the Commonwealth finances so much that we are borrowing a billion dollars a month just to pay the interest. Shame on you! Asbestos 4101 14:57 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Australia has the highest per capita rate of asbestos disease in the world. Forty thousand Australians are expected to die from asbestos. There are reports that the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency is to be axed. Does the Prime Minister agree with Senator Cormann that this agency is 'window dressing' and that it is misused for PR purposes? And why does this Prime Minister go out of his way to make life hard for asbestos victims? Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We put up with a lot of argument in the questions from the opposition, but I think that trying to drag asbestosis sufferers into that is really beneath the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask him to rephrase the question so that the argument is removed from the question. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG If it helps, I am happy to rephrase the question, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER SE4 Thank you, it would help. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG This is not an argument: Australia has the highest per capita incidence of asbestos in the world. It is not an argument that 40,000 people will die from asbestos. It is not an argument that finance minister Cormann has called the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency 'window-dressing' and misused for PR purposes. None of this is argument, Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why are you allowing the axing of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency? 14:59 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah It has not been axed. It is as simple as that—it has not been axed. I do reject the suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition—an unworthy suggestion, if I may say so—that this government or, indeed, myself as prime minister, are uninterested in this. Obviously, we want to do the right thing— Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 Order! The question has been asked. The member for Rankin is warned! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 by all people who are suffering, including people who are suffering the dreadful diseases that come from exposure to asbestos. Without wanting to, as it were, blow my own trumpet, when I was the health minister I did establish a national research centre for research into this terrible disease. So I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition: before he gets into the politics of smear, check the facts. Budget 4102 15:00 Mr VARVARIS 250077 Barton How have the government's changes to foreign aid in the budget ensured our aid program is more effective and fair? 15:00 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Barton for his question. I visited his electorate last week and I am very impressed with the level of engagement that he has with the ethnic communities in the seat of Barton. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Grayndler will drop out if he's not quiet! Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P The Australian government has stabilised our foreign aid budget at just over $5 billion a year. In 2016 the foreign aid budget will increase from $5 billion a year by CPI. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Wakefield will remove himself under 94(a). The member for Wakefield then left the chamber . Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P We are focusing our aid effort on our region: the Indian Ocean, Asia-Pacific. It is where we live. It is where we have the most influence. It is where we can make the biggest difference. We are no longer raiding the aid budget to the tune of $740 million to plug a hole in the border protection budget. We are no longer moving $5.7 billion out of the aid budget when no-one is looking, as Labor had done. So we are providing certainty. It is affordable, it is responsible and it is sustainable. It means that the Australian government is still among the top 10 aid donors in the OECD world, in developed countries, and in our own region we are second only to Japan in terms of the amount of our aid budget. We have consulted with our partners and we are putting in place performance benchmarks and mutual accountability. This is the new aid paradigm that other developed countries are doing; Australia likewise is taking a new approach. But I do have to put this in context, because Labor's debt and deficit means that we have to borrow a billion dollars each and every month to pay the interest on Labor's debt. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was part of the former cabinet under the former Labor governments and so she ought to know better than anyone the train wreck that we inherited from Labor in terms of debt and deficit. Yet, sure enough, she puts out a press release on 14 May saying that Labor would be putting in an extra $16 billion to the aid budget. Labor commit to this additional $16 billion. Where do Labor think they are going to get that from? Well, they could continue to borrow. They could borrow $16 billion from overseas to send $16 billion back overseas. That is Labor's thinking. Then we would have to borrow money to pay the interest on the $16 billion that they borrowed from overseas to send back overseas. The alternative to borrowing is to cut more programs, so I would like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to tell us— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The deputy leader will desist! Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P which programs she intends to cut worth the $16 billion— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Sydney is warned! Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P that Labor say they will add to the aid budget. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, by this $16 billion commitment, has proven once more why Labor should never be trusted with taxpayers' money. I suggest that she listen to the words of Bob Carr: 'You can't run aid on borrowings.' Budget 4103 15:03 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that on the same night he cut the pensions of many Australians who live on just $20,000 per year he attended a dinner in the Speaker's dining room which in one night raised $50,000 for the Liberal Party? 15:03 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I think that the shadow minister should tell the truth. Pensions have not been cut and they will not be cut. The shadow minister, frankly, demeans himself and he demeans this parliament when he suggests that they have. He should stop scaring pensioners—and while he is about it he should stop writing references for drug runners in Villawood. Honourable members interjecting— Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. An untrue— Mr Dreyfus HWG What a grub! You're not fit! Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 I said before that people are watching this question time, they are trying to listen in the galleries. People in the chamber cannot even hear what is being said because of the noise. It is time we had a return to some decorum in this place. The Prime Minister has resumed his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will have the call on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister made a comment that was unparliamentary and untrue and should be withdrawn. The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. The Prime Minister has the call. Opposition members interjecting— Mr ABBOTT EZ5 To assist the House— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I am happy to withdraw. The SPEAKER SE4 The Prime Minister said he is happy to withdraw whatever the problem was. Mr Dreyfus HWG What a grub you are! The SPEAKER SE4 We will have that withdrawn as well! Mr Dreyfus HWG I withdraw. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I am happy to withdraw and I am sorry that I did make that reference in respect of the member for Watson. I should not have done it. But he, equally, should not try to scare pensioners. The pension is not being cut. The pension will not be cut. Every six months under this government the pension will go up. As the Minister for Social Services has just pointed out, in March the single pension went up by some $15 and the couples pension went up by some $12. And it will happen in September and it will happen next March and it will happen next September. This will happen each and every year. Yes, come September 2017, the pension will increase by CPI as opposed to male total average weekly earnings. The best thing that we can do for the pensioners of Australia is make the pension sustainable. The best thing we can do for all Australians is get the budget back under control. The best thing we can do for our country, to honour our commitments, is take the necessary and the difficult decisions needed to secure this country's future. That is what we are doing: we are securing this country's future. And what are members opposite doing? They are worrying about who might be in what room, at what time, in this parliament. Really and truly, this man is no Bob Hawke. He is no Bob Hawke; he is no leader; and he has no answers for the difficulties our country faces. The SPEAKER SE4 Before I call the member for Wannon, we will have silence. This sort of noise level is the sort of noise level that prevented me from hearing the Prime Minister's comments which he has withdrawn. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 We will have some decorum even if it takes a long time for people to learn. I call the honourable member for Wannon. Child Care 4104 15:08 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. Will the minister explain what measures the government has taken to improve access to occasional child care in this year's honest and considered budget? Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier you ruled that we had pushed argument to its limit. I think that pushes irony to its limit. The SPEAKER SE4 That is not terribly amusing, either. 15:08 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I am pleased to have a question from the member for Wannon, who has fought very hard for his constituents on the matter of occasional child care. I visited his electorate in 2011 and met with UnitingCare. They had lost $15,000 in funding overnight without any consultation with the then minister. The service had been forced to reduce hours and raise fees. So I am pleased to reiterate the coalition's commitment to reinstating the $12.6 million in funding for occasional child care slashed by the former government. This will assist parents, particularly those in rural and remote areas such as Wannon. There are many reasons why families might need to access occasional child care—casual work, illness, unexpected life events; sometimes for rural and regional children it is the first important form of socialisation before school. Thousands of Victorian families rely on this form of child care operating from hundreds of centres across the state. Earlier this year I wrote to state and territory education ministers seeking their support for participation in the program, along with a commitment from them to meet 45 per cent of the cost as they did under the previous arrangement. I look forward to this form of child care getting back up and running after the previous government increased the cost to parents for child care, overall, by 50 per cent. This is a government that stands up for what we know to be right, not what we know to be easy. I think the worst thing that any of us can be accused of in this place is believing in nothing. I sat on the opposition benches for six years while two successive Labor prime ministers delivered five successive budget deficits, trashed the national accounts, trashed our economic credibility and ran up a billion dollars in interest payments every month—all in a desperate attempt to buy votes. It was a desperate attempt to buy votes by buying things the country did not need with money the government did not have and, with respect to the deal with the Greens, to impress people they did not even like. They were a Labor party that believed in nothing then and which believe in nothing now. By contrast, we stand here to make the difficult decisions for the good of the nation. I encourage members opposite to support our reinstatement of this vital form of child care. Mr Abbott EZ5 I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 4105 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Tabling of Documents By Private Members 4105 15:12 The SPEAKER SE4 I have a question from the member for Watson but before we go to that, I want to make a statement on a question I was asked last time we sat. This is a question on the tabling of documents by private members. During question time on 15 May 2014, the member for Jagajaga sought leave to table a document during the response by the Prime Minister to a question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. A number of points of order were taken at the time and reference was made to earlier rulings concerning tabling of documents by private members. I said that I would look at the precedents and advise the House. The relevant standing order 199 provides that only ministers may table documents without leave and only when there is no motion before the House. Members other than ministers or parliamentary secretaries require leave of the House, at any time, to present documents. Two speakers have ruled on the question of the presentation of documents, by leave, by private members. In 2004, Speaker Hawker held that a request from a private member for leave to present a document during question time would not be put to the House where the document was already on the public record. In 2012, on four separate occasions, Speaker Jenkins stated that he would not permit a private member other than the person asking the question to seek to table a document during question time. Subsequent to Speaker Jenkins' departure from office his rulings were not sustained, with members other than the questioner being permitted to seek leave to table a document during question time. As I see it, the purpose of allowing a private member to present documents to the House is to inform the House in relation to the matter raised by that member in his or her remarks. What is not permitted is the use of this procedure as a disruptive device, particularly during question time. With this being the underlying principle, and consistent with earlier rulings, I propose to uphold the rulings of Speakers Hawker and Jenkins so: (1) only the member speaking or, at question time, the questioner may seek leave to table a document, and only then after the minister has concluded his or her answer; (2) a request by a private member for leave to table a document will not be put where the document is already on the public record; and (3) a request for leave by a private member to table a document will not be permitted when used as a disruptive device. Ms Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 I beg your pardon. I resent that implication. I would ask that to be withdrawn. Ms Burke 83S I will withdraw, but it was on the basis of the interjections by the member at the time. The SPEAKER SE4 I do not care what the reason was. I find it an offensive interjection. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 4106 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Speaker 4106 15:14 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Madam Speaker, under standing order 103 I have a question for you in your role as the administrator of parliament. How many Liberal Party fundraisers has the Speaker held in the Speaker's dining room and on what dates did these fundraisers occur? 15:15 The SPEAKER SE4 I know the member for Watson was late into the parliament at nine o'clock this morning so he probably did not hear the statement I read on that occasion, so I will read it again. On 15 May 2014, the member for Moreton asked me a question about the display of posters in corridors. Posters had appeared on the outside of doors to several members' suites, and the member had asked that they be taken down. Consistent with the longstanding practice, upheld by successive Speakers, that signs and posters not be permitted in the corridors or on the doors leading off the corridors, the members concerned were asked to take the posters down at my request and they have since been removed. It remains the prerogative of members to place material inside the internal corridor windows of their suites. Also, all members are entitled to use their suites for their own purposes, but of course not for illegal purposes. That is the answer to your question. 15:16 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Madam Speaker, I refer you to page 179 of House of RepresentativesPractice, where it states: For many purposes the Speaker is in effect 'Minister' for the Department of the House of Representatives and jointly with the President of the Senate is 'Minister' for the Department of Parliamentary Services. As you would appreciate, ministers are not able to hold political functions in departmental resources. I ask again: how many Liberal Party fundraisers has the Speaker held in the Speaker's dining room and on what dates did these fundraisers occur? 15:17 The SPEAKER SE4 I refer the member also to the Practice, which refers quite clearly that the Speaker is in charge of the domain of Parliament House, which was made quite clear from the original time of the Speaker holder back in 1901. I have said that members may use their suites for whatever purposes they see fit, and that includes you, but they may not use them for an illegal purpose. Therefore, it is not the business of either executive government or others to ask members the purposes for which they use their offices. That is the rule. 15:18 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Madam Speaker, in your role as administrator of that department, which then goes to the finances of that department, I ask: how much has the Liberal Party paid on each occasion for the use of the Speaker's dining room for fundraisers and has the ordinary $600 venue hire fee, which applies to all private dining rooms, been among the payments made? 15:18 The SPEAKER SE4 I will not engage in debate on the question. I have made the ruling. I have said that members may use their offices for their own purposes. DOCUMENTS 4107 DOCUMENTS Presentation 4107 15:18 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MOTIONS 4107 MOTIONS Council of the National Library of Australia 4107 15:19 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I seek leave to move a motion for the election of a member to the Council of the National Library of Australia. It is one of your members. Leave granted. Mr PYNE 9V5 I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960, this House elects Mr Hayes to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia and to continue as a member for a period of three years from this day. Question agreed to. PRIVILEGE 4108 PRIVILEGE 15:19 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. In recent days there have been reports that the Speaker has used her Parliament House dining room to hold Liberal Party fundraisers. There is a question as to whether the Speaker or the Liberal Party paid for the use of the Speaker's dining room for these party political functions. I have available for tabling, if it would assist, articles from The Sunday Telegraph, The Sun-Herald, The Sunday Times, theSundayCanberra Times, The Age and The Australian. I ask the Speaker to investigate whether this constitutes an improper interference with the operations of the House of Representatives such as to require that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee for investigation and report. The SPEAKER SE4 I simply say that the member for Watson is perfectly at liberty under standing order 216 to write to the committee himself, and I recommend that he do so. Mr BURKE DYW Madam Speaker, House of RepresentativesPractice indicates that I should first raise the issue with you in the House, which I have now done, and then there is an option for an individual to have ready a motion to move immediately, which under Practice does not require a seconder. Is that the path you wish me to choose? The SPEAKER SE4 I have said that under standing order 216 you are perfectly entitled—and I am following a ruling made by my predecessor, the member for Chisholm. That is the ruling, so you no longer have the call. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I seek the call. The SPEAKER SE4 You can seek the call, but I recommend you do precisely as I said. Mr Burke DYW I seek the call. The SPEAKER SE4 You have the call. 15:21 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests: Whether the Speaker's use of her Parliament House dining room for Liberal Party fundraisers constitutes an improper interference with the operation of the House of Representatives. It has been the case throughout this parliament and previous parliaments that there are venues for hire all around the building. The Speaker's office is not one of them. I do not intend to completely derail the day and derail the parliamentary business of the day. I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that you would take the questions in good faith. There was no argument in the questions that I raised. The questions I raised simply sought the same sort of information that the people of Australia are entitled to find out about. When I first heard these allegations, I made the response that I believed that your position would be untenable if it were true because I could not believe, for all the arguments that I have had with the chair, that your office would become outsourced to the Liberal Party as a fundraising venue. For all the arguments we have had, it never occurred to me that partisanship would go to effectively donating a venue to the Liberal Party. The media have gone through and checked with your predecessors. Your predecessors have not done that for the very simple reason that your role matters and the dining room that you are afforded with is there— The SPEAKER SE4 It's my suite. Mr BURKE DYW for the many important diplomatic functions you host, for the many important charity events you host. That is what it is there for. Your job is not owned by the Liberal Party in the way that you can just dish out a free venue because the Liberal Party, if they went to any other part of Parliament House, would have to pay $600. It is not there for that purpose. Staff come, you have table service, you have staff provided to you, you have various forms of crockery available and everything that is available for cleaning up the office afterwards: this is not an ordinary venue. Madam Speaker, I do not want to prejudge the work of the Privileges Committee. We have tried to manage this in an appropriate way: calmly through the parliament without blowing this issue up. I ask, Madam Speaker— Mr Pyne interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW I have the motion here; I will just sign it. I am signing it because we were not expecting to move it; we were expecting the ordinary thing that a Speaker does, which is take 24 hours to reflect on the issue and then report back to the House. That is how these issues are ordinarily done. Madam Speaker, your role and the precedents that come with your time in the chair change our parliament forever. Every action from a Speaker ends up finding its way into House of RepresentativesPractice. I do not want to see a situation where we end up with whoever happens to be in government, and therefore having the majority to elect the Speaker, using it as a tawdry way to save a $600 room hire fee. That is an appalling thing to happen and an appalling thing to happen with that particular office. Madam Speaker, the comment you made this morning—you made the jibe, when you made the reference earlier, that I was not physically within the House. That is true. I heard the comments though; I was aware of them before I asked any of the questions. And with those comments that you made, you failed to acknowledge one important thing: your office is different to every other office in this building. Because your office is the only one—yours and the President's are the only two, but yours is the only one on this side of the house—that is, in effect, a departmental ministerial office. You manage a department. None of the ministers—I hope, unless they have gone down even further a pathway that I dare say even they would not go—I would presume go and hold fundraisers in ministerial offices and in departmental offices. No ministers to my knowledge ever have, but on budget night—and we are told there is more than one occasion. I thought that was quite a reasonable question: how many times has this happened? Seriously, Madam Speaker, if you had nothing to hide you would have told me. If you had nothing to hide on this information, you would have provided the information that was sought in those questions. Why is it that the Speaker is unwilling to let the parliament know how many times her office has been given for free for fundraising objects within the Liberal Party? And I have to say there is a reason at the moment why attention has turned around Australia to Liberal Party fundraising methods. There is a reason why, all around Australia, we are starting to find out—and I am glad the member for Dobell is still here in the chamber—and why we are realising the different methods that have been adopted by the Liberal Party in fundraising operations. To think that it goes to the office that is ostensibly the office that is meant to be independent within this parliament is extraordinary! One of the arguments that is offered in the papers by the spokesperson for the Speaker is that independence of the role only occurs when the Speaker is in the chamber. That is a big call in itself, but how can that be true, Madam Speaker, when you lead parliamentary delegations around the world and you do so representing the parliament? Part of the job you hold extends that independent role representing the parliament beyond this room. It is an important role and it is a role that every presiding officer has. That is the reason you get a dining room, that is why you get it. I know, Speaker, you are shaking your head, but trust me: it is not meant to be for the Liberal Party. That is not the idea of the Speaker being given a dining room. And that is exactly why the member for Chisholm never used it in that way. That is exactly why Harry Jenkins never used it in that way. That is why your predecessors, Madam Speaker, whether they be Labor, Liberal or National, have not done this! This is a fundamental change in your role, Madam Speaker, and if you were confident of your position, I think you would be willing to tell us how many occasions it has happened. If you were confident of your position on this issue, Madam Speaker, I think you would be willing to tell the parliament—because we do have a right to know—whether or not the $600 room hire fee, which would apply to every other private room within the building, every other private dining room that is able to have that table service, was paid. The SPEAKER interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW You would be willing to provide that information, or at least you would be willing to give an answer as to why you thought what you had done was reasonable. But to instead come in here and to say, 'I read out a script this morning, and no matter what you ask I'm just going to read it again', Madam Speaker, that is just not tenable. The position of Speaker is one where we—you gave a ruling when you first took the job. You said you would only be answering questions about administration of the parliament. We took you at your word on that immediately. The practice that had been in this chamber for some years of questions to the Speaker happening after question time, questioning how many people you had thrown out and things like that—and realistically we have had more reason to question that than in previous parliaments—we have not been asking those questions for that reason. We have taken seriously the ruling that you gave. Now there is an issue of administration. There is a direct issue of administration. I have asked you, Madam Speaker, to answer questions about how you have used your office, and you will not tell the parliament. I have asked you, Madam Speaker, to answer questions about the extent to which the Liberal Party has cashed in on you being in that chair, and you will not answer those questions. You will not tell the parliament. Madam Speaker, I have asked you to simply let the parliament know how you use that dining room, how you provide a free kick for the Liberal Party, and your view is the parliament has no right to know. So then we say, 'Well, at least can we have the Privileges Committee have this issue referred to them?' That was raised in a way with no argument, with no reflections on you. But you couldn't even bear to let the normal processes of the parliament go through. You couldn't even bear to have the normal processes of this parliament take place and you refer a matter to the Privileges Committee. Worse still, you couldn't even bear to say, 'Let me reflect on it overnight,' which is what speakers ordinarily do. Madam Speaker, none of your predecessors have used the dining room in that fashion. We have a right to know what you are doing with the independence of your office and how you are trashing it. We have a right to ask questions and you, if you are doing your job, Madam Speaker, have an obligation to tell us and through us the Australian people how much the Liberal Party is cashing in on you holding that role. There is a real focus on the way parties raise money—and quite properly. There have been allegations which have come out through different inquiries around the country that in different ways have reflected on both sides of politics and, Madam Speaker, this one reflects on you. This one reflects personally on a judgement call that you made that previous speakers either had parties that were decent enough to not ask or speakers who had integrity enough to say no. Madam Speaker, it is with no joy that we get to the point of asking for it to go to the Privileges Committee, and absolutely with no joy that you fail to follow the practice of your predecessors and do not even take time to think about it. You just say straight out, 'This won't happen,' you just say straight out, 'Go write to someone else.' Sorry, this is your job. You are the Speaker. You are the person charged with the independence of the parliament and you are the one who, according to media reports, is using your office as a fundraising vehicle for the Liberal Party. Madam Speaker, we have a situation where, before this parliament rose, I went through example after example of grievances the opposition held on the way that you have held your role. I will not go through them again now, because they are not relevant to this motion. What is relevant to this motion is how quickly you are adding to the list, because, Madam Speaker, in less than two weeks, in a total of just four sitting days, we have discovered—I will go through them—that apparently you have used your office as a fundraising venue for the Liberal Party on budget night; apparently you may have done this on more than one occasion—you may have done it on many occasions. No-one knows, except for you, and you will not tell the Australian people. Madam Speaker, we then asked questions to you. For the first time you have been facing questions in this parliament, and what do you do? You go back to the script and will not depart from a statement that you made this morning, most of which, I have got to say, has nothing to do with this. And if that final paragraph is relevant to this issue, I might add, Madam Speaker, it is a ruling you gave after these events occurred and therefore is irrelevant to these events, because it is a ruling that until you made that statement previous speakers had not been willing to use their offices in this way. Madam Speaker, at any point during the debate on this motion it is completely open to you to simply say that you will reflect on the matter and report back to the House tomorrow. The moment you do that this motion will be withdrawn, because that is a better process. That is how the parliament has ordinarily conducted itself when it has had a speaker other than yourself. And if, I might add, Madam Speaker, the matter of privilege had been about anyone else, I reckon you would have reflected on it. I reckon if it had been about anyone else, there is a fair chance you would have said in the ordinary course, 'I will report back to the House tomorrow.' But to think, Madam Speaker, that the one time where you dodge the practice and the precedent is when it applies to you, that really does have people asking questions. It really does have people asking questions about a Speaker who has been under pressure—forget what has happened within the parliament—throughout the Australian media and the Australian community as the most biased Speaker we have ever had. To then be using your position in the most blatant way there is, as a vehicle to provide a free venue to the Liberal Party, is just wrong. It is just plain wrong. And, Madam Speaker, there are venues for hire, but they would have cost the Liberal Party $600. That is what they would have cost. To simply say, 'Oh, look, I paid for the food and drink.' Madam Speaker, there were the staff, there were the cleaners after, there are a whole range of costs associated with that, but, most importantly, there is the venue and it was the one venue that is meant to be independent on this side of this building. Madam Speaker, I implore you to actually finally do something that is in accordance with the practice of this House. Simply say that you will consider the matter and report back to the House tomorrow and this motion is gone and gone immediately. Because, if not, every member of the Liberal Party is about to vote on the most extraordinary conflict of interest, because they are about to vote on whether or not they reckon they should be able to get a free venue. The poor old Nats are going to have to vote as well, even though some of that money will be used against them. Madam Speaker, for those opposite, on this we cannot be accused in any way—I am sure it is about to come—but realistically we have not gone looking for this argument. We have gone through this the appropriate way. We have followed practice. You, Madam Speaker, should do the same. There is no seconder. The SPEAKER SE4 Before I call the Leader of the House I will say this: the reason I did not say I will take it and reflect upon it is because it does reflect on me. It is far better that you were able to move your motion and deal with it within the parliament in an open way and you have your say—although I find it a bit rough to be lectured on morality from you, Member for Watson. I call the honourable the Leader of the House. 15:36 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt It is disappointing to be lectured by the Labor Party on any matter to do with the speakership of the parliament and particularly today of all days when on the front page of TheDaily Telegraph the member for Watson has been exposed as writing a letter calling for consideration to be given to releasing a convicted drug trafficker Mr Nweke into community detention. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 What is the point of order? Ms Plibersek 83M Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to reconsider the statement that you made about— The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. I have sat here and accepted the words that were said about me. The Leader of the House has the call. Ms Plibersek 83M You have questioned his morality and you have engaged in debate when you should not. The SPEAKER SE4 The deputy leader will resume her seat. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr PYNE 9V5 You just do not know how to behave, do you member for Rankin, member for Lingiari, Deputy Leader of the Opposition? It is just extraordinary. You have no manners at all. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the House has the call. Mr Bowen DZS Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The SPEAKER SE4 If this is meant to disrupt debate— Mr Bowen DZS No it is not. The SPEAKER SE4 Then I will accept the point of order. Mr Bowen DZS I have a point of order on two grounds: firstly, you clearly intervened and participated in the debate; secondly, you clearly reflected on a member of this House. Any one of us would have been asked to withdraw and would have. You should comply, with respect, with the same rules that apply to every other member. Very clearly, you should withdraw that comment. The SPEAKER SE4 Except me, apparently. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr PYNE 9V5 The opposition has moved this motion about whether the Speaker's use of her Parliament House dining room for Liberal Party fundraisers constitutes an improper interference with the operations of the House of Representatives. The first point the government would make is that we will not be supporting this motion under any circumstances. The reason we will not be supporting this motion is that this is a motion about smear and innuendo directed at the Speaker's office. Smear and innuendo are the Labor Party's first weapon of choice; it always has been and continues to be so. Smarting from their election defeat last September, from the moment that you were elected, Madam Speaker, the Labor Party has been trying to smear you, denigrate you and traduce you in the chair. On the very first day, the Manager of Opposition Business called you a witch, Madam Speaker. And here we are today debating the latest in the series of attempts to denigrate you as Speaker. Our opinion, on the government side of the House, is that you are upholding the role of Speaker with dignity, decorum and intelligence, as we expected when we elected you last year, Madam Speaker. Since you have been elected Speaker, Madam Speaker, the opposition have moved dissent motions. If my memory serves me correctly, they moved a dissent motion the first day that you were appointed Speaker. It was one of many dissent motions. They moved a no-confidence motion against you at the end of the last sitting of parliament and now, on the flimsiest of pretexts, the Labor Party have moved a motion accusing you of misusing your position as Speaker because you held a dinner in the Speaker's dining rooms. As you pointed out, Madam Speaker, fundraisers occur in this building all the time. And as long as those fundraisers are paid for either personally or by the political party that a member represents, they in no way breach any rules of this parliament. And so instead of simply accepting that there are no rules breached—and you commented on this, Madam Speaker, this morning—the Labor Party have come into the chamber this afternoon and moved a motion that is clearly designed to smear the position of Speaker and to do another political stunt—in this case, to play the woman not the ball. We are not going to be lectured by the party of the member for Watson, who was exposed today on the front page of the Telegraph as having advocated for Mr Nweke, a convicted drug smuggler. This is also the party that suborned the former member for Fisher, Peter Slipper, into selling the past and effectively joining the government by taking the Speaker's role in the last parliament, pushing Harry Jenkins, the former member for Scullin, out of the seat in order to gain one vote. This was the brilliant idea of the former Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler. In a sheer act of genius, they would, in one fell swoop, gain a vote on the floor of the parliament by bringing Harry Jenkins back to their side of the chamber and moving a member from our side of the chamber into the Speaker's chair. Unfortunately, that did not go quite as well as the then government hoped. So we are not going to be lectured by the party of Peter Slipper; we are not going to be lectured by the party of the member for Watson. That is not to even go into the stories that have come out of ICAC involving the Obeid family, Joe Tripodi, Ian Macdonald and many others over the last several years. All of this is designed to distract the media and the public from the fact that the Labor Party have a complete paucity of policy or understanding of what is needed to be done in opposition. The Labor Party have not yet finished the grieving process of losing the election in September last year. I can understand that after six years they were shocked to have been such an incompetent and terrible government that they ended up back on the opposition benches rather than on the government benches. What they need to do now in opposition is accept defeat. They need to accept that the carbon tax is rejected and allow it to be repealed by the incoming government. They have to start developing the policy that will help them to perhaps regain the government benches over the years ahead. All of these kinds of political stunts, all of these attempts to smear the Speaker, to make the Speaker an object of political football, are all designed to distract from the fact that the opposition have no explanation for the debt and deficit disaster that they left the incoming government after September last year. So every day we will hear every other issue other than an explanation for why they were so incompetent that they were unable to leave to the new incoming government the same economic conditions that the Howard and Costello government left to the Rudd government when it came into power in 2007. The reason we will not support this motion is that the government is not going to join in a political stunt that distracts people from Labor's paucity of ideas, from their inability to deal with their own grief having lost last year's election. We will not join in a political stunt designed to smear the Speaker and the Speaker's office. Therefore, the government will not support this motion. I think I have spoken long enough because I think the time of the House is better spent on government business. On that note, I move: That the question be now put. 15:55 The SPEAKER SE4 The question now is that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:49]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)

83 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S (teller) Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Varvaris, N Vasta, RX Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 54 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Macklin, JL MacTiernan, AJGC Marles, RD McGowan, C Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The House divided. [15:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)

 54 AYES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Macklin, JL MacTiernan, AJGC Marles, RD McGowan, C Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 83 NOES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S (teller) Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Varvaris, N Vasta, RX Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 4117 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:58 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER SE4 Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BURKE DYW I do. The SPEAKER SE4 Please proceed. Mr BURKE DYW On the ABC AMprogram this morning the Leader of the House claimed that I had asked the minister for immigration to intervene on behalf of a specific detainee within the Villawood detention centre. This statement is untrue. The letter which I wrote states a request that was made by someone else and informs the minister that the other person made that request. Madam Speaker, I seek to make a further personal explanation. The SPEAKER SE4 The member has the call. Mr BURKE DYW On page 1 of today's Daily Telegraph there is a claim in the headline that I had sought for a particular detainee to be released from the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre. This claim is untrue. On page 2 of today's Daily Telegraphthere is a redacted version of the letter which I wrote to the minister for immigration. Had this letter not been redacted, it would be clear that the request referred to in the letter was being made by a constituent who had visited my office and not by me. Madam Speaker, I wish to make a further personal explanation. The SPEAKER SE4 The member has the call. Mr BURKE DYW In question time today the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection all referred to me providing references for a specific detainee within the Villawood detention centre. This is not true—although the Prime Minister has provided character references that he should regret. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, given the personal explanation that has been taken by the member for Watson, is it within the standing orders for me to table the letter from Mr Burke to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection that clearly refutes the statement he has just made in the House? This says, 'would appreciate any consideration that could be given to releasing Mr Nweke', and he just said that he gave no support for releasing Mr Nweke. Ms Plibersek 83M How do you have that? Mr Pyne 9V5 It was given to me by the minister for immigration. Mr Albanese R36 Madam Speaker, I am very concerned that— The SPEAKER SE4 What is the point of order? Mr Albanese R36 the Leader of the House is about to breach privilege against a member. I do not know how he has that letter. The letter is not the same letter. That is correspondence between a member of parliament and a minister. That is quite clearly subject to privilege. Mr Pyne 9V5 Rubbish! Mr Albanese R36 That is quite clearly subject to privilege, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER SE4 There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call. Mr Albanese R36 Madam Speaker, on what basis? Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, I think we know the point of order that is being made by the member for Grayndler. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. Mr Albanese R36 On what basis? Mr Pyne 9V5 Because we understand the point you are making. The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the House has the call. Mr Pyne 9V5 Madam Speaker, when the member for Grayndler was Leader of the House he used to constantly refer to letters that he had received from members about transport matters or infrastructure matters or BER openings and table them and show them as props in question time. For them to now stand there and hypocritically pretend that somehow this is unusual is quite ridiculous, and I am asking for your guidance. Mr Albanese R36 Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. Mr Albanese R36 I am entitled to— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. Mr Albanese R36 No. I am entitled to have a point of order. The SPEAKER SE4 The member will remove himself under 94(a) for one hour. The member for Grayndler then left the chamber. The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the House has the call. Mr Pyne 9V5 I am asking for your guidance, Madam Speaker. I am happy to come back later after you have had the chance to consider it. The SPEAKER SE4 A minister has the right to table documents without seeking leave if there is no motion before the chair. Mr Pyne 9V5 In which case I table the letter that the member for Watson wrote, which refutes the statement he just made on the matter of personal explanation, where he claimed that he had made no attempt to influence the decision of the minister. This refutes that statement. The SPEAKER SE4 The Leader of the House has tabled the document and will resume his seat. Mr BURKE DYW Madam Speaker— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Watson has the call. Mr BURKE DYW Madam Speaker, I will be brief. What the Leader of the House has just done— The SPEAKER SE4 Are you saying you have been misrepresented? Mr BURKE DYW No, Madam Speaker, please bear with me for a moment; I will be as brief as I can. What the Leader of the House has just done—he may want to deal with this himself. When the letter was published today in a redacted version, it was for very specific privacy reasons that the paper took that view. What has just happened there does not appear to be the redacted version— Mr Pyne 9V5 I will show you a copy of it. Mr BURKE DYW Well, I have seen the original. Mr Pyne 9V5 The names have been removed, except for Mr Nweke's, obviously; he has already been in the newspaper. The SPEAKER SE4 The point has been dealt with, it would seem. COMMITTEES 4120 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Committee 4120 Report 4120 16:03 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby by leave—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the committee's report No. 442: Inquiry into the 2012-13 Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Report. Today I table the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit's review of the Defence Materiel Organisation's 2012-13Major Projects Report. This was the sixth annual major projects report to be produced by the Audit Office and the DMO. This year's report covers 29 projects with a combined budget of over $44 billion. The committee's aim in reviewing the MPR is to help to maximise transparency and accountability in the Defence acquisition process. The committee has made a range of recommendations directed towards this. The DMO MPR constitutes the ANAO's review and analysis of the progress of selected major Defence acquisition projects managed by DMO, and aims to consider cost, schedule, and capability performance and to function as a longitudinal analysis of procurement projects over time. The JCPAA assesses the overall content, accessibility and transparency of the information provided in the MPR, and also reviews and endorses the guidelines that constitute the MPR. The committee is committed to ensuring the information presented in the major projects report helps to maximise transparency and accountability in the Defence acquisition process for major projects managed by DMO. Specific areas of focus in the committee's review of this year's report include cost, schedule, and capability performance, and governance and business processes. Defence major projects are inherently complex. Meeting cost, schedule and capability targets must be considered in this context, particularly for developmental projects. There are a range of issues affecting the completion of major projects. These include: Managing schedule delays as a result of budgetary constraints; Employing and maintaining an appropriately skilled workforce; Contractor overestimation of the technical maturity of proposed equipment solutions; Contractor underestimation of the level of effort and complexity required to deliver new equipment; Unavailability of in-service equipment (due to operational requirements) limiting the ability of projects to install, and test new or upgraded equipment; and Complying with increasingly demanding certification and regulatory requirements. The committee acknowledges these various challenges. The creation of DMO and the evolving improvements in how it operates were a significant step forward for Australia. The MPR is an important element of this progression along with the corresponding parliamentary scrutiny. The committee's report makes 10 recommendations directed at: Improving the reporting of budget estimates and actual expenditure; Improving the line of sight between the MPR, the portfolio budget statements and portfolio budget estimates statements; Developing a more effective methodology for reporting sustainment activity and expenditure; Improving the reporting of slippage post second past approval and acquisition type by approval date; Improving the assessment and reporting of statements relating to capability; Retaining the publication of project maturity scores until they are no longer required by the JCPAA; and Improving reporting on exited major projects. On behalf of the committee, I would like to express my appreciation for the work done by the DMO and the Australian National Audit Office in producing the major projects report each year. I would like to thank the committee secretariat for their assistance in preparing this report. I also thank the witnesses from the DMO and the ANAO for their participation in the committee's review. I commend the report to the House. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). 16:07 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton by leave—I rise to briefly speak to the report. First off, I commend the chair on the excellent process that produced this report. This is the latest in a series of major project reports conducted by the DMO and the ANAO at the request of the JCPAA. The key table in this report that people should look at is table 5, which demonstrates that significant improvements have been made in the performance of major defence procurement in this country. But there is a stark contrast between projects approved before the Kinnaird and Mortimer reforms and projects approved post that time. It is in this context that I raise deep concerns about any move to reduce the independence of the DMO or attempts to reintegrate it into the Department of Defence, because I fear that we could return to an era where the average slippage in schedule was 87 per cent, which is what occurred in projects pre the Kinnaird reforms. That is the real lesson that came out of the major projects report. A key recommendation of the report was around sustainment reporting, and I again commend the committee on the constructive way it approached this issue, trying to balance the very serious national security issues around the disclosure of information that may be of use to potential adversaries versus the right of the parliament and the people of Australia to know how their defence dollars are being spent and how that platform is performing. It is fair to say that the committee is still not fully satisfied with how Defence is reporting on sustainment, which is quite opaque in the portfolio budget statements. Hopefully, hard work between the Audit Office, the DMO and the committee can resolve this issue over the coming year. Finally, I would like to touch on the performance of some individual projects that are in this report, particularly the patrol boats and the air warfare destroyer, which was also subject to a separate ANAO report. In that case, as is highlighted in the major projects report, there is a clear link between a decline in the boom and bust of the shipbuilding industry and the performance of that project. The audit report clearly states that we are paying the price for a run-down of work post the ANZAC projects. It also notes the ongoing problems with the patrol boats. In my firm view, this adds more evidence to the case that we need to bridge the shipbuilding 'valley of death', where we have 4,000 naval shipbuilding jobs at risk. We can get greater performance for the defence department, for the Navy, by bringing work forward and at the same time save 4,000 jobs. I was deeply disappointed that the budget of a fortnight ago had no information and no certainties for those 4,000 workers and their families. I commend this report to the House. I congratulate all participants in the hearing process, particularly the ANAO and the DMO. I echo the chair's thanks to the committee for delivering an excellent report. 16:11 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 4122 16:10 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 4122 BILLS Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Repeal Bill 2014 4122

Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Repeal Bill 2014

Second Reading 4122 16:11 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I rise to oppose the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Repeal Bill 2014. This bill seeks to repeal the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Act that was introduced by the Labor government only last year—2013. The resources sector is an enormous part of Australia's prosperity. According to the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics, at the end of October 2013 there were 63 projects at the committed stage, representing a combined value of $240 billion. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are 273,000 people employed in mining, oil and gas projects. So, given the size of this industry, it is essential that any move to regulate the environment that this industry operates within is done carefully. Firstly, regulation must take into account the safety and conditions of the persons working on these projects. Secondly, regulation must take into account the unique contribution that this industry makes to the Australian economy through the creation of jobs, trade and export value. The Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Act 2013, introduced by the then Labor government, sought to clarify the status of persons working in offshore marine zones, in response to the case Allseas Construction SA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012]. It is also known as the Allseas case. In Allseas, the Federal Court found that pipe-laying vessels and noncitizens working on those vessels were not within or working within the migration zone as defined under section 5 of the Migration Act 1958. This meant that workers on board those vessels did not require a visa. The then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, announced that the government would legislate to amend the Migration Act 1958 and clarify the situation regarding workers in Australia's offshore maritime zones by expanding the scope of the migration zone. The department then commenced a review and established the Migration Maritime Taskforce to inform the best way to address the situation. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee also examined the bill then, noting that it complied with Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and recommended that it be passed. During each of these processes, extensive stakeholder engagement was conducted. It is important to note that Labor's act is not due to commence until 30 June this year. This was to allow adequate time for further facilitation and stakeholder engagement regarding the specifically tailored visa pathway for offshore resource workers that was to be developed and was prescribed in the Migration Regulations 1994. Primarily, Labor's act sought to ensure that persons who participate in or support an 'offshore resources activity' are deemed to be in the migration zone, thereby requiring all noncitizens engaged in offshore resources activities to hold either a specific or permanent visa. At the time it was acknowledged that there was a need to strike a balance between encouraging investment in our offshore environments and the need to ensure that Australia's offshore jobs are regulated under Australian laws. Labor's position on this has not changed. It is critical that Australia maintains a healthy investment environment in its offshore projects. This will not only make sure that the industry has ongoing viability, but also ensures that we maximise the capacity of these projects to employ the right people with the right skills. Winding back the Labor government's reforms will re-open a significant loophole in Australia's ability to regulate the conditions of our offshore resources industry and to regulate the workers who are employed on these valuable national assets. This could lead to situations where those working on these projects are working under conditions that do not adhere to Australian standards. This in turn reduces work opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents and puts businesses that only engage workers who hold valid visas at a competitive disadvantage. A return to the absence of a regulated visa scheme in offshore resources projects also poses potential security risks. In the absence of visa character tests, the government has no information on some of the workers engaged on these offshore projects. By repealing this legislation, this government is returning to a situation that undermines the integrity of Australia's migration framework. It is important that Australia maintains an approach to skilled migration that allows for flexibility to fill gaps in the labour market when there are no Australian workers to do the job. However, the offshore resources sector is part of Australia's labour market. If there are Australians who are capable of doing the job, they should be employed to do it and under Australian safety standards, Australian wages and Australian conditions. This bill seeks to repeal the conditions and standards that Labor regards as vital to the ongoing success of our offshore resources industry, and it is for these reasons Labor is opposing this bill before the House. 16:18 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning I spoke on a similar bill to this when it was brought through the House previously and I am pleased to do so again. In speaking to the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Repeal Bill 2014, I need to make a few preliminary observations and then speak to the core of the bill. Basically, the bill looks to simplify what was going to become under Labor an extremely complex set of arrangements for those international maritime workers and businesses who sought to help build our nation's capacity in the resources sector for the benefit of all Australians. It seems to have become commonplace for coalition members such as myself to stand here and speak on bills which seek to clean up the mess left by Labor when it relates to migration—and, if I have time, I will go into that later. But I say at the outset I have raised this in my own party room and I have raised this in this House before: there is no conflict in my mind as to who should have jobs priority in Australia. It should be Australians. There is no conflict whatsoever. It is nondebatable. But the problem is that every now and again we find a specialised sector of the workforce where Australians do not have the qualifications required. When I have raised the issue previously—and you may recall my raising this, Mr Deputy Speaker—we found there are anomalies. We get the anomaly in a special skills set where you could have a welder, for example, who is quite capable of doing everyday welding and even some specialty welding, but when he is required to do special alloy welding, such as welding under the ocean with special rods, not everybody has that skill set readily available. I am sure that there are Australians that do have that skill, but they are not readily available and on the spot. I have made the point previously that where these shortfalls are occurring, it is the onus of the businesses and, dare I say, the governments of Australia, to make sure that Australians are upskilled so that they can do these jobs. There is not enough compulsion on those wanting to be involved in these sectors to make sure that they are value-adding to their workers so that they can take on specific projects. I make that caveat before I continue and say anything else in relation to this bill. What needs to be understood in relation to this bill—and the previous speaker, the member for Corio, raised this—was that in May 2012 the Federal Court precipitated this bill because they found that Allseas pipe-laying vessels and noncitizens working on these vessels were not within, or not working within, migration as defined by the Migration Act at the time when laying these pipes. That was an unusual set of circumstances and needed to be clarified and the court ruled that way. The Labor Party decided on a legislative response. The decision was in response to the action taken by Allseas against the Labor government after assertions were made that Allseas should be employing deckhands and crews on 457 visas. Normally, the Labor Party is railing against 457 visas, and we have seen the union ads about how terrible 457 visas are. As I said, Australians first—but if you cannot get an Australian you have to get the job done. The complication with this particular bill is that many of these people never came to the Australian shore. They did not even get to step foot on mainland Australia. They were coming on boats—for example, on transport rigs or pipe-laying boats—that never actually entered the territorial zone of Australian waters. They were in the wider territorial zone, 200 kilometres out. And, dare I say, there is another technicality with people who flew into an international airport, like Broome—I understand that Karratha has the ability too—in that technically, they never actually set foot on Australian soil and they never had to provide a visa. They were picked up from the airport and flown out to the rigs or the barges. So it was an interesting complication and, correctly, it had to be dealt with. The original offshore resources activity migration bill to change this was rushed through the parliament in the dying days of the Gillard government. This bill was not introduced to meet an urgent and essential concern of the industry or government; it was introduced basically as a favour to their mates in the union, because they were anti anyone who was not a member of the union. In his dying days as the minister for immigration, the member for Gorton put this bill forward to facilitate a further union power grab on the offshore resources industry. We know that offshore at the moment we have all these demarcation disputes. We have Martin Ferguson, the former resources minister, railing against this big time, that it is un-Australian and it is hurting Australia. And, of course, they have turned on him now. The demarcation dispute is between the AWU, the MUA and the CFMEU. You have all this argy-bargy and trying to muscle in on the territory to make sure that they are all members of their unions. This is what this is about. This is not trying to resolve it; this is about a power grab for their particular union. Why was it introduced on the 30th by the then Minister O'Connor, the member for Gorton, and not the then soon-to-be minister for immigration, the member for—Chris— Mr Briggs IYU Bowen. McMahon. Mr RANDALL PK6 The member for McMahon. Why was it not introduced by him? You have to understand the history of somebody who has come to this place with the agenda that the member for Gorton had. We know that when he came to Australia he and most of his family found a home in the union movement. I do not have any problem with the unions. I think that quite often they are a good idea for collective bargaining and as a way to get better terms and conditions for their workers. But when they become a political force, basically for and on behalf of the Labor Party, then they have to be looked at. I was a union representative myself as a schoolteacher. I was happy to try and get better terms and conditions for my colleagues in the teaching profession. But when that same union started collecting money from both me and my wife, who is a schoolteacher, and decided that they were going to use that money in campaigns against us, I drew the line. Why should we be paying union dues when that money was being used in a campaign waged against us? This is not what the bill is about; this is about a power grab by the unions to control the offshore resources industry, as I have already said. Obviously, it is about shoring up the member for Gorton's base and those who got him here. We know that his brother, Michael O'Connor, is one of the head CFMEU bosses. He has a lot of influence. That is how you get in here; if you have influence through the unions you get preselected. So it is about paying back debts. This is about throwing international agreements to the four winds around the Arafura and Timor seas, and imposing unnecessary and harsh regulations on the offshore industries that serve us. It is not completely in the best interests of Australia. In relation to the comments made by the member for Corio, I find it very interesting that he said this visa would not pass the character test. Well, goodness me! Please, Labor Party, do not talk about visas and character tests! We can hark back to those entering who burnt a boat and five people were seriously hurt. Five people were taken to court and convicted, and they still got visas from those opposite! So much for a character test! I will not go into the contentious activity of today too much, other than to say that somebody who is a drug dealer and wants a visa in Australia might not pass the character test either. So they should not lecture us about character tests and visas. There is a whole range of people who should not be allowed to stay in Australia who have been caught in pretty nefarious and illegal activities, and under this lot opposite they are still in Australia. We are going to apply the character test as it should be applied. The member for Corio also said that this is about safety. Well, good—I am all for safety. But I know, as somebody who has been inducted onto these rigs in the resource areas, that you have to go through a massive induction program before you get on there. This is another thing—and this is one of the reasons why it is difficult for the resources industry to comply with a whole lot of the ambit claims given by these unions—they have to fly the union rep out by helicopter and house him out there. It has been reported that some offshore employees have had to charter special service flights as seats were not available on normal flights because the workers were actually using them. It has resulted in critical expenses that saw an operator have to outlay something like an extra $80,000 to placate the unions and their mates and just get them out on the barge or the platform. The irony of all this is that when we talk about visas like this, the member for Brand was roundly criticised because he tried to organise 457 visas especially for our resources industry in Western Australia and—who was it?—Paddy Crumlin and the MUA wanted to threaten his preselection. And then there was the former member for Batman, Martin Ferguson, who said that the MUA was threatening all these jobs and that it was going to hurt our resources sector. At the moment we are seeing the MUA threatening to take all the tugboat guys out on strike. They get paid $135,000 just for six months work and the unions want to see them get paid 40 per cent more 40 per cent more and reduce their on-time to 4½ months. That sort of workplace is not sustainable. The reality of what this ambit claim is in relation to this visa is that if somebody wants to come to this country and operate without coming into our migration zone they should be allowed to be employed by that company. Just put the reverse: if we go and do a fair bit of work in the Middle East in both the oil and gas sectors off Saudi or off the Emirates and we do not go ashore in one of those countries, they do not have unions up there but do we have to belong to their regime? Do we have to get a visa to enter? We do not. You go straight to the job site. This is what we are talking about, so this is sensible legislation. The Labor Party will oppose it all the way. I point out again, and confirm, that this is no more than a power grab by the unions and the Labor Party in this place looking after their union mates. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, went to Western Australia before the last federal election. He said one thing in Western Australia and something else over here. What he said in Western Australia was: 'I want to see unions more like the MUA, because they are more militant. I want to see them raise their head and take on people in an aggressive way.' I will bring the cuttings in next time I speak on one of these bills and table them because I think they are very interesting reading. Yet when he comes back over this side of the country he says, 'No, no, we don't want that sort of militant action from unions,' but he has got the CFMEU, a militant union, and the MUA, a militant union, trying to impose themselves. This legislation clearly fixes up the mess that the Labor Party would have taken us into—and thank goodness that was rushed through and not proclaimed properly. As a result we are going to make sure that by 1 July this year this sort of legislation is improved so that it does not hurt the Australian resources sector and that it is actually in the best interests of our productivity and the workers in the north-west, not the union bosses in the north-west and their beneficiaries here in Canberra, the members of the Labor Party. 16:32 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I oppose the passage of the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Repeal Bill 2014. Currently in Australia noncitizens working on offshore resources and installations such as offshore or exploration platforms are required to have a visa that entitles them to work on those platforms and that entitles them to work rights and to be subject to Australian laws. That is the law of Australia: anyone working on an offshore oil platform must have a visa. But noncitizens who are working nearby, in some cases closer to the Australian shore, on vessels that may be laying pipes and are not stationary but moving around from day to day are not required to have a visa and therefore are not subject to Australian laws and work rights. In anyone's book this is completely illogical and inconsistent. That is why the previous Labor government introduced the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill last year to clear up the confusion that currently exists between two groups of workers who, for all intents and purposes, are doing similar work in similar zones but with different outcomes. On 15 October 2012 the former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, announced that the government would legislate to clarify the situation around workers in Australia's offshore maritime zones. That clarification was brought about because of confusion that arose because of a Federal Court case, Allseas Construction v the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in 2012. In that case the court found that vessels that were laying pipes offshore in Australia's migration zone and had noncitizens working on them were not within or working within the migration zone as defined by the act. This meant that workers on board those vessels did not require a visa. So you had people who were working within the zone that would ordinarily be accepted as Australia's migration zone, but because the vessels they were working on were not stationary they were not in the migration zone as defined in that decision and therefore Australian laws did not apply. In the wake of this the Labor government did not act in a knee-jerk manner. We did not rush legislation into the parliament. What did we do? The Labor government undertook a process. The Migration Maritime Task Force, comprising various Department of Immigration and Citizenship experts, was developed to explore options to determine the most appropriate way to ensure that foreign workers in Australia's offshore maritime zones came within the ambit of the act. It was this independent task force that found that any question as to whether a person was in the migration zone or not should not be solely dependent on where the person was physically located but should also be dependent on the sorts of activities the person was conducting. It was acknowledged that there was a need to strike a balance between encouraging investment in Australia's offshore environments and ensuring that Australia's offshore jobs were regulated under Australian laws. This finding was also in line with a longstanding practice of the Labor Party of ensuring that all Australian employment and industries are regulated under Australian law, including those located on the landward side of the outer limits of Australia's territorial sea, in the exclusive economic zone, or in the waters above the continental shelf, which is where this work was being conducted in the Allseas case. As a result of this research and the extensive consultation with stakeholders, the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill was introduced to provide that a person is taken to be in the migration zone while he or she is in an area to participate in, or support, an offshore resources activity in relation to that area. The bill defines offshore resources activity as activity administered under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Minerals Act or under the law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory, as determined by a minister in writing. The bill sought to bring offshore persons into the migration zone and thereby require them to hold a visa under Australian law. This new, comprehensive framework was designed to ensure that workers in Australia's offshore resources industry are regulated under the act and required to hold specific visas. Overwhelmingly, I believe that this is a view that is supported by Australians. Individuals who engage in offshore resources activities in Australia's offshore maritime zones should be subject to existing compliance measures in the act that address breaches of work and visa conditions. A specifically tailored visa pathway for offshore resources workers was to be developed, in conjunction with stakeholders, to meet the needs of industry groups. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea gives Australia the jurisdiction to do this, as it provides sovereign rights with respect to the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of Australia's exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. In his second reading speech on this particular Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Repeal Bill that is before the House today the minister for immigration, Scott Morrison, spoke of the importance of the offshore resources industry to the Australian economy. He pointed out that it generates $28 billion in revenue and contributes $9 billion in direct taxes to our country. The continued success of the oil and gas industries is indeed vital to the energy needs and economic prosperity of our nation. But this industry is also a great generator of jobs—jobs for Australians—and it is on this issue that Labor differs from a coalition government. It has become painfully obvious that when it comes to jobs this government does not have Australia's best interests at heart. The minister in his speech also alluded to the difficulty of determining with any level of accuracy who is working in the offshore resources industry from overseas, what they are doing and how much they are paid—precisely the requirement for this type of visa category to be introduced in Australia. We believe there is a principle at stake here. These are jobs which Australians can perform within our territorial waters which should be subject to Australian law, and winding back the Labor government's reforms will reopen a significant gap in Australia's ability to apply decent Australian working conditions to our offshore resources industry and regulate how foreign workers are employed on these valuable national assets. The absence of a regulated visa scheme in offshore resources projects also poses a security risk. In the absence of a visa character test, the government has no information at all on some of the workers who are performing work on these projects. There is also a safety issue at stake here. The member for Canning pointed out that if you go onto an offshore oil platform you will go through one of the most stringent induction processes and occupational health and safety tests. There is a good reason for that, and it is that Australian occupational health and safety laws apply on those offshore oil resources. Australian workplace laws apply because those resources are subject to Australian law and within our migration zone, and that is the same approach that should be taken to projects such as the laying of pipes in similar circumstances. The inability of the government to regulate foreign workers in Australia's offshore resources industries undermines the integrity of Australia's migration program and visa regime in regulating work entitlements. This can obviously lead to scenarios where this important work is being carried out under conditions and standards that are not up to scratch in comparison with Australian laws and standards. Just as concerning is the inability to effectively regulate these workers. Opportunities for Australians to gain access to this highly skilled work may be reduced or removed, while putting workers who hold a valid visa at a competitive disadvantage. Labor acknowledges that there is a requirement for 457 visas in certain industries under certain circumstances, but only where it is clearly demonstrated by an employer that Australians do not have the necessary skills or capabilities or are not readily available to perform that work. Only under those circumstances should 457 visas be allowed. The 457 visa program has a valid role to play not just in the migration program but also in the overarching economic framework of labour mobility generally. Labor accepts the need to strike a balance with the legislation introduced when we were in government in 2013. We believe that strikes the right balance between encouraging investment in Australia's offshore environment and ensuring that Australia's offshore jobs are regulated under Australian laws. That is why workers who are working in these resources projects should be subject to Australia's migration laws. They should hold valid Australian visas and, importantly, they should work under conditions and safety rules which apply to the rest of the Australian workforce. That is why this bill must be voted down. 16:44 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to speak on one of this government's key repeal bills which, if the act is left in its current form and not revoked, has the ability to significantly hinder Australia's future economic viability, and trade and employment relations, both domestically and on an international scale. The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Repeal Bill 2014 is to repeal the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Act 2013, or ORA act as it is more commonly known. The ORA act sought to regulate the employment of noncitizens working in the offshore resources industry by way of a visa arrangement. This is regardless of whether they are actually working on a resources installation or not. For those in this House who are not aware, the former government introduced these legislative changes in response to a Federal Court decision in May 2012, known as the Allseas case. In this judgment, the Federal Court ruled that noncitizens who work aboard vessels not within the migration zone are not required to hold work visas. This was part of an exemption in the Migration Act where vessels that are not being used for a resources installation are viewed in the act as being outside of the migration zone. The intention of the ORA act was to remove this exemption with the overall aim to regulate the employment of overseas workers in the offshore resources industry and to impose Australian terms and conditions of employment, or rates of pay, to all noncitizens working in the industry. Noncitizen employees working on installations would therefore be required to hold and comply with a valid visa. The ORA act was implemented by the former government and received royal assent on 29 June 2013. The operative provisions of this act, however, have not yet commenced—something I am sure industry and my colleagues who understand the former government's true intent for introducing this legislation can all be thankful for. But let's not beat around the bush: the reality is that the ORA act was nothing more than an attempted power grab by the Labor Party on behalf of their union brothers. It was an attempt to tie our resource projects up in union red tape. We can all sit in this place and tell ourselves that it must be because the former government wanted to increase the number of Australians who work on these offshore resource projects—something I must say I, of course, fully support. Who doesn't? But when you get to the heart of the act, the truth is much simpler. The truth is exactly what we would expect from the former government—the introduction of legislation to this House to give more power to the unions who fund their political party. While making this power play, those opposite of course did not think about the regulatory impact and additional implementation costs it would have on Australia's offshore resources industry or the significant impact it could potentially have on Australia's international investment and commercial viability. After all, those opposite introduced a mining tax which created these same uncertainties, so we cannot expect much more from the Labor Party. Labor's only thought is to pander to their union mates, rather than thinking about Australia's economy, the viability of one of our key export industries or our international standing. If this act is not repealed, it will simply lead to duplication in regulation for the offshore resources industry and will hinder Australia's commercial viability for future investments. If the red tape surrounding our industries is considered too much work by international standards, then these investments will simply be made elsewhere. Australia is not the only country with offshore resource activity or minerals. A key concern of industry groups is that offshore resource companies require highly skilled workers who are often sought globally. This is not because these companies do not want to hire Australian workers but because Australia simply does not have tradesmen and women with these skills, or enough of them. To keep the ORA act in place, we would therefore be forcing industry to adhere to additional visa enforcements for no other benefit than being able to confirm the status of a foreign national in the migration zone. What needs to be understood is the fact that noncitizens who work on resource installations or who come to the Australian mainland to work are already required to hold visas. Noncitizens must also hold a valid visa to be immigration cleared when they transit through an Australian airport on their way to and from resource installations and vessels. Simply put, all workers entering Australia are still subject to stringent immigration controls—we aren't just letting people waltz into our country without knowing who they are, where they are from and their reason for entering Australia. All the ORA act does is duplicate this process. It is also important to note that the ORA act would introduce a significant regulatory burden on the offshore resources industry in terms of the cost to comply with the ORA act and the associated visa arrangements. This is despite all indications being that the number of noncitizens working in the industry, who are not currently required to hold visas, is relatively small. One estimate has in fact put the total at approximately 2,000 people per year, with only a proportion of these people being in Australia at any given time, given the prevalence of fly-in fly-out workers in the resources industry. According to Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration, known as APPEA, the peak national body representing Australia's upstream oil and gas exploration and production industry: 'The oil and gas industry is a major driver of Australia's prosperity. In 2011-12 Australian LNG cargoes earned almost $12 billion in export revenue and put $29.4 billion dollars into the Australian economy.' They also said: 'In the same year, the oil and gas industry also paid more than $8 billion in taxation to governments across Australia. With $200 billion worth of new projects now under construction, the industry's contribution is set to grow substantially, having generated more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs across the Australian economy in 2013.' Any legislation that has the potential to stymie investment in Australia's resources industry should therefore be of great concern to all who sit in this chamber, to industry, and to Australian taxpayers. It is of particular concern to me, given that my electorate of Durack accounts for some 85 per cent of Western Australia's resources sector. As many of my colleagues would be aware, Western Australia's resources sector generated the largest contribution to GDP of any state resources sector, at 53 per cent of the national resources industry value added or $89 billion, in 2011-12. What my colleagues on both sides of this house may not be aware of is that the majority of these resource projects are in my electorate of Durack and, in particular, the Pilbara region, which contributed over $22 billion annually or some 75 per cent of total output in 2010-11. Adjacent to the Durack electorate, we also have a number of offshore resource projects with the companies office headquarters predominantly based in the Pilbara region or in Perth. This includes but is not limited to Chevron's Barrow Island project, Woodside's North West Shelf, Pluto LNG projects, and Apache and BHP projects. Needless to say, these are major resource projects that require highly skilled and competent workers. In turn, it will not—or at least it should not—come as a shock to those in the chamber, that Australia substantially relies on the wealth that is, or will be, generated from these projects. However, it seems that, by implementing this act, those opposite managed to forget these important facts and were instead too focused on the narrow-mindedness of their union mates, who failed to see the big picture. They failed to see how an act such as this can hinder an entire country, all for the small benefit of being able to confirm the status of a foreign national in the migration zone. On the scale of things, I think Australia's international competitiveness and ensuring that companies with offshore resource projects are able to continue hiring the skilled workers they need to get the job done safely and productively far outweighs the former government's unionist focus on industrial relations laws. Industry has consistently opposed the ORA act, with APPEA in particular highlighting significant economic and safety concerns as a result of the act's implementation by the former government. In their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the act's repeal, APPEA in fact stated: In APPEA's view, ORA 2013 has been formulated to service an industrial relations agenda rather than a skills or health, safety or environmental agenda. Extending Australia's migration zone through ORA 2013 in order to extend industrial relations laws to vessels and workers undertaking highly specialised work for a short time only adds to the regulatory burden applying to offshore construction and operations with no palpable benefit. It goes on to say: The industry is truly global in nature and must compete for a limited pool of international investment capital. Investment lost from the Australian oil and gas industry will be redirected to overseas competitors … Even small delays can add significant costs to industry and, in turn, the Australian economy. This sentiment was reiterated in submissions by the Australian Mines and Metals Association and, of particular note, in submissions by the Business Council of Australia, the Department of Industry, and in a joint submission by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Border Protection Service. In fact, I think the Department of Industry summed up the former government's overall policy strategy—or lack thereof—for the full six years they were in government, in their review of the ORA act: The ORA Act has created an unnecessary regulatory burden for the offshore resources sector that is significantly disproportionate to the original policy intent. Its application is unclear and confusing for industry. Repeal of the ORA Act would support Australia's international competitiveness and encourage investment to maintain the economic benefits of a strong offshore resources sector. I could not have said it better. The department also felt the need to re-emphasise 'the importance of appropriate consultation with industry on legislative changes that will have implications for them'. Apparently having a chat with the industry about this act was not too high on Labor's agenda. But as we have already established, those opposite were only concerned with how the act could benefit their own coffers and that of the unions they represent, rather than the regulatory burden it would place on such an important industry for Australia's economic prosperity. When we take a look at the former government's overall strategy throughout the six years they were in government, I think we can safely say that little thought was given to many of their policies. Let us look at the big picture. If those opposite cared about our taxpayers, as they claim, they would not have introduced the carbon tax. If they cared about our resources industry, they would not have introduced a fiscally unstable mining tax that generated little revenue. The fact that they spent predicted revenue from the mining tax before it was generated, let alone in the coffers, apparently was not an issue either. The only thing that was generated under the former government was more red tape. That is why, on 26 March, the Abbott government marked a historic occasion when we held our first ever red tape repeal day. This effectively removed over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation, saving over $700 million in compliance costs. This repeal day was part of the government's overall strategy to cut $1 billion in red and green tape each year to improve productivity, investment and employment opportunities for all Australians. You see, the comparison is clear: while the former government was focused on creating additional administrative and regulatory costs for pretty much every Australian business or industry across all portfolios, this government is focused on helping industry to grow and ensuring that Australia is best placed to take advantage of international investment opportunities as they arise and without delay. This will create growth and prosperity for our nation, something that Australians regrettably have not seen for the past six years. By repealing the ORA act, this government will give the greatest certainty to business and individuals engaged in offshore resources activities. It would ensure that no changes are made to existing arrangements and would provide certainty regarding the relationship between the migration zone and the offshore resources industry, consistent with the Allseas Federal Court ruling. This is critical in a sector that is already facing growing global competition for future investment. Reducing regulatory burdens and scrapping legislation that makes Australia and our key industries internationally uncompetitive, such as the ORA act and the mining tax, is the only way we can achieve this and is something that every member in this place should be fighting for. I commend this bill to the House. 16:58 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise to make a few remarks in opposing the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill. Resources in Australia, including in Australia's exclusive economic zone, are there to be used for the benefit of this country, first and foremost. Over many years, when it comes to a lot of those resources, the bulk of the benefits have been flowing overseas. In the mining sector, 83 per cent of the profits flow overseas, largely to institutional shareholders. There are similar problems when it comes to Australia as a country, including Australia's workers, getting a fair share from the resources under our oceans as well. The thing about these resources is you only get to dig them up or extract them and sell them once. Once they are gone, they are gone. You would hope that in the process of doing that, we would ensure that people in Australia, in the Commonwealth of Australia and the states of Australia, receive a fair return. We are finding that that is not happening. We may as well wake up on the other side of this mining and resources boom to find that we are a hollowed out, uneducated quarry. It is not just the profits that have gone overseas but also the profits that have been left here that have been squandered by successive generations of Liberal and Labor governments. Instead of putting the profits away for some day in the future when the rest of the world tells us to stop digging, we have spent and spent and spent, and it will come back and haunt us. More than that, there is a real question about whether local workers in Australia are getting a fair share of the benefits from this resources boom. There is a very real risk that we are going to wake up and find that the profits have not been invested in transitioning us to the clean energy society that will set us up well for the 21st century. There is also a very real risk that we will wake up and find that the skills have gone overseas as well—in other words, the once in a generation chance to train up a body of people in the skills needed for construction, manufacturing and maintenance will have passed us by. There have been several attacks on this front. There has been the exploitation and overuse of 457 visas. Our approach here is from this principle: the Greens have no problem in saying that if you cannot find someone locally for a job, you should be able to bring someone in from overseas—we have no problem with that at all—but we do think that you should look locally first. Part of the problem has been that there has been no obligation to look locally first. This legislation relates to a decision that a lot of people in this country would be quite stunned about. They probably would not have expected that the practice was happening in the first place or that the existing legislation fixed the problem. The Allseas decision of the Federal Court said this about an offshore resources platform that may be within Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone and may be extracting Australian resources and then sending them off somewhere else, but certainly someone would be making money from them: provided the vessel does not actually connect with that platform and pulls away again, people on that vessel do not need to be covered by Australian wages and conditions. That would come as a shock to very many people, that in Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone they are extracting Australia's resources and they do not have to apply Australian labour law as the minimum standard. Legislation to close that loophole was passed through the last parliament which we proudly supported. It simply said that if you are working in Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone extracting Australian resources, you apply Australian labour laws. It should not be that hard. Of course along comes this government and they want to repeal that protection. They want to make it so that when you are extracting Australian resources, it does not matter that there are no locals employed on that project and it does not matter that the people who are employed on the project might be employed on half the wages and conditions that apply under Australian law. They do not care because, as we have heard from the last speaker, all they need to hear is a list of submissions from big business that says, 'We'll make a bit more money if we do it this way,' and that is enough for them. This legislation is especially needed in the maritime industry because, by their very nature, ships and resources activity are mobile. This legislation ignores the specifics of this industry. In my experience, certainly before coming to this place but also since then, when I have been representing many Australian workers, especially low-paid workers as well as a number of unions, you hear example after example of local workers turning up to work on ships only to find that there is an existing crew from a country that is not as rich as Australia and are paid less. They find an existing crew already signed up with an existing enterprise agreement. I do not fault the people who are coming here from other countries seeking to better their own lives. But what is happening is that the floor, the minimum set of wages and conditions, is being lowered. Those people should be entitled to Australian minimum wages and conditions as well, and it is not happening. Instead, this government are saying: 'How low can we make the bar? How quickly can we make the floor rot so that there is no longer a uniform set of minimum wages and conditions in Australia?' The idea that we can start carving out bits of this country where fewer protections apply is something that previous Labor and Liberal governments have form on when it comes to migration laws. They cannot move quickly enough to say bits of Australia are not Australia and therefore the same human rights standards do not apply. But now we are seeing that same philosophy creeping into our industrial relations laws. If this legislation passes, it will just increase the race to the bottom. People who come here to work will be on substantially lower wages and conditions than what would apply under Australian labour law. That does two things. It puts those people who have come here to work under extraordinary pressure. They will be subject to incredible exploitation and they know they will be able to be flicked back to where they came from if they misbehave. But more than that, it lowers the floor for everyone in this country. If this legislation passes and if you are running an offshore oil or gas platform, why on earth would you employ an Australian resident if you have to pay Australian wages when you can just ship someone in from elsewhere and pay them half as much? That is ultimately what this legislation is about. The government needs to answer to the people whose wages, conditions and jobs it is attacking through this legislation. I have no doubt, as we heard from previous speakers, that there is a long list of big business representatives who want this legislation passed. They will make even more money if this legislation gets passed. But the losers will be not only the people who cannot work on those platforms anymore but all workers here, because the minimum level of wages and conditions in this country will start to drop. That is ultimately what this legislation is about. For that reason we will be opposing it. 17:08 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Repeal Bill 2014. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Act 2013, otherwise known as the ORA act. I rise with my colleagues the member for Canning and the member for Durack to support this repeal of the bill. The ORA act seeks to unduly regulate the employment of noncitizens working in the offshore resources industry by way of a visa arrangement, regardless of whether or not they are actually working on a resource installation. The bill was another example of Labor creating a market for unions. As we have just heard, it was supported also by the Greens. Amendments were introduced by the previous government, who, because of the unions, went after legitimate businesses operating in Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone. The previous government took to the Federal Court in May 2012 a case that became known as the Allseas case. The Allseas case involved two vessels attaching gas pipelines to the seabed within Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone and the waters of the continental shelf. In its judgement, the Federal Court ruled that noncitizens aboard the two vessels were not within the migration zone and therefore not required to hold work visas. This was due to the fact that, as the offshore resources industry had maintained, both vessels fell within an exemption in the Migration Act that specifically provides that a vessel that is used or is to be used wholly or principally in manoeuvring a resources installation, or in operations relating to the attachment of a resources installation to the Australian seabed, is not a resources installation and therefore not part of the migration zone. Labor and the unions—and, as we have just heard, the Greens—were not happy with the ruling from the Federal Court, and, despite not having a good understanding of the impact of the bill, they set about amending the Migration Act. At the time this legislation was introduced, it is important to note, the previous government stated that it had an incomplete picture of the number of noncitizens working on board vessels who did not hold visas. Instead of seeking to understand the impact of the legislation, they pushed it through. While it is true that determining a precise number of people who are affected by this regulation is difficult, consultation with the industry and the migration advice profession and across government indicates that the number is actually relatively small. One estimate has put the total at no more than 2,000 per year, while others have put the number at considerably fewer than this. When we compare this with the 68,000 overseas workers who were granted 457 visas during the last financial year, let alone with the number who are granted permanent visas each year under the migration program, it becomes even clearer just how small the number really is. In undertaking to repeal this particular piece of overly burdensome regulation, it is important to note that the offshore resources industry is vital to the Australian economy. The member for Corio spoke earlier about the prosperity supplied by the mining industry to Australia. If he was that concerned about the prosperity supplied by the mining industry to Australia, he would have made sure that the mining tax and the carbon tax were never introduced, which directly affect the mining industry, particularly in Western Australia. Australia is the world's ninth largest energy producer, and the oil and gas industry accounts for 2½ per cent of our GDP, generating $28 billion in revenue and contributing $9 billion in direct tax payments. The development of Australia's offshore resources contributes significantly to the Australian economy and employs thousands of Australians. It is also critical for our future energy security, accounting for 58 per cent of Australia's primary energy needs. If we are to continue to derive the substantial economic benefits that this industry provides, it must be allowed to remain internationally competitive and be able to operate in line with international best practice. The industry should not be expected to operate under an increased regulatory burden or additional cost pressures that would put the viability of current and future projects at risk. However, the ORA act will do exactly that. The offshore resources industry is a global industry and it competes for a limited pool of skilled labour. It employs a highly mobile workforce and relies on the capacity to be able to transfer workers with specialist skills from project to project and from country to country. This means that our migration arrangements must be relatively flexible and not impose an undue administrative burden on industry or create unnecessary barriers for overseas workers when they are genuinely needed, especially when their skills are unavailable in Australia. A leading offshore resource industry group has said: Australian jobs and our overall economic success relies on a confident, growing offshore oil and gas industry able to do business consistent with international laws and practices ... With this much at stake, it is vital that sectional interests do not come before the national interest and that parliament delivers sustainable, proportionate and balanced regulation affecting offshore operations. The government could not agree more. Hence we are seeking to repeal the union-led extension of the Migration Act. The issue of Australia's offshore maritime zones is highly complex. In addition to international conventions, the offshore resources industry is subject to complex and overlapping regulatory frameworks imposed by Commonwealth, state and territory legislation. We therefore need to consider any regulatory changes in this context very carefully and to pursue considered and measured policies. Repealing this legislation does not mean that the industry is or will be in any way unregulated. For example, noncitizens working on a resource installation will still be required to hold valid visas. They will also still be required to hold the appropriate visa if they wish to come to the Australian mainland. Hence, if a particular employer wants to transfer their overseas workers to a project on the mainland, they must hold a visa with an appropriate work condition, such as a 457 visa. The ORA act also fails to take into account the fact that many persons engaged on resource installations and vessels use fly-in fly-out arrangements and frequently transit through an Australian airport, which requires them to hold a valid visa to be immigration cleared. Hence, many of those persons who are not currently required to hold visas for the work they are doing on a vessel are still subject to immigration controls when they enter or leave Australia. To the extent that persons working in Australia's offshore maritime zones are subject to Australian domestic laws, these laws will still be policed and enforced by the appropriate authorities. Terms and conditions of employment, for example, will continue to be protected under domestic law and, where appropriate, under international law through the Maritime Labour Convention. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Authority, and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, will continue to ensure the safety of those persons working on board resource installations and vessels operating in Australia's exclusive economic zone and the waters of the continental shelf. The government is committed to promoting the development of Australia's offshore resources, to adhering to Australia's international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to maintaining the integrity of Australia's borders. Repealing the ORA act would remove an unnecessary and disproportionate legislative burden on an industry that is critical to Australia's future economic growth and the wellbeing of all Australians. I commend the bill to the House. 17:16 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth I cannot believe what we have heard here today in this debate on the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Repeal Bill 2014. The surrender monkeys of Australian jobs are at it again, falling over themselves one after another to get up here and justify stripping back great opportunities for Australian employment. Let us be very clear about this: this is not an argument against 457 visas. The Labor government legislation, which we are here defending today, protects Australian jobs by saying that if you want to bring in workers to work on our oil and gas installations, you need to establish that there is no Australian who is capable of doing that. Under all of this language that has been used about deregulation, today we have a proposal, saying that we are in fact going to have open slather on our oil and gas industry. I thought the member for Durack made some quite appalling statements, basically suggesting that Australians did not have the capacity to do these sorts of jobs and therefore we needed to allow people to come in. We are the second biggest exporter of oil and gas around the world. The question has to be asked: why are we not developing this capacity? We should be the centres of excellence, of skill development in oil and gas, not putting up our hands and saying, 'No, we can't do that work; we're going to allow those well-paid jobs to be taken offshore.' There is a particular stupidity about this proposal that is ignoring a development in this industry, a development which I have been prepared, as has my colleague the member for Brand, to support as the industry moves towards floating LNG platforms. This technology has indeed been of considerable concern to the unions and also to some of my erstwhile colleagues in the state parliament. But, quite frankly, we are taking the pragmatic approach that this appears to be the technology of the future and that we have to go with that technology. But the way in which we ensure that this is viable, that it is a good outcome for the Australian community, is to ensure that the jobs on those LNG platforms are indeed jobs for Australians. This is not insignificant. Figures have been quoted today by various members. I think the member for Canning and the member for Durack talked about there not being very many people concerned about this matter and that we are talking of only a couple of thousand jobs and even that is probably at the high end. I put it to you that, firstly, we should be looking very carefully at even a couple of thousand very well-paid jobs and, secondly, we have to be very mindful of the direction in which the industry is going. I am going to talk a little bit about the scale of the floating LNG industry that is emerging. In Western Australia in particular we are very conscious of this because we are seeing the first project in Australia that will be coming on stream, hopefully in the next couple of years, with the Shell Prelude project off the Kimberley coast. APPEA projects that investment in floating LNG in Australia could top $65 billion over the next six years. That is a massive industry, which is a complete transformation of the way in which we have done offshore oil and gas in the past. It means that the jobs go offshore and that the vast bulk of the jobs that are associated with the oil and gas industry will be offshore jobs. And now we have the surrender monkeys in here tonight, telling us that we are not even going to require a 457 visa— The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The member for Perth will not refer to members opposite as monkeys— Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Surrender persons— The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 and will withdraw the use of— Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the use of the word 'monkey' and, instead, say we have these surrenderers, these people who do not have the guts to stand up for Australian jobs. Equally frightening, they appear to have no knowledge, although they claim to be representatives from Western Australia, of the very seismic shift that we are seeing in the nature of this industry. If I could quote David Byers, the CEO of APPEA. He acknowledges that, with this technology, potentially there are fewer jobs for Australians in the construction phase. But he says that more benefits and job growth will come through the operational phase. He makes the point that if we do this right Perth is placed to become a global centre for FLNG development and technology. So we lose out in the construction phase but the gains really come in that operational phase. We have this potential. We are now looking at, first of all, the Prelude facility, for which there has been a final investment decision, so that is going ahead. We have got Woodside now looking at their Browse project. There has also been floating LNG and we hope that there will be a final investment decision on that next year. We know that Exxon and BHP Billiton are looking at FLNG for their Scarborough field. Similarly in the Northern Territory we see in the Bonaparte Gulf they are looking at going down the path of floating LNG. There is a seismic change in this industry, a seismic change that will be profoundly affected by this legislative proposal that we have here before us today. I would really like to hear a response from the government on where in this new environment this industry is going. How do we then ensure that Australians have an opportunity to compete for these jobs? Not even a 457 visa will be required into the future. We have got this great opportunity as this industry emerges to be right at the forefront of that. We should be developing a centre of excellence for FLNG and I would obviously like to see that in Perth. I believe that we at the same time have to ensure that we are training those people that are going to be the world leaders in the maintenance and the operation of these facilities. That simply will not happen if we lay down the gauntlet and say that we are not going to put any protections on these jobs for Australians. So we have, as I say, a profound ignorance of the direction in which this industry is going and it appears that this legislation may have been developed without any cognisance of that. It certainly will be a great lost opportunity. I think it will be a very bad outcome for the companies involved, because companies like Shell and Woodside realise that there is a battle that is going on for their technology. Just last week in the state parliament in Western Australia the blue team and the red team combined to put out a report that was highly critical of the move to FLNG, the members of the committee wanting to support Mr Barnett's ill-founded dream of a gas hub at James Price Point. They point to the loss of jobs that will occur by going offshore. But what we have to do and what these companies should be realising that they need to do is go out there and win the hearts and minds of Western Australians and of Australians with this new technology and assure them that there will be these fantastic job opportunities, long-term jobs. These floating platforms have a projected lifespan of around 25-30 years on these gas fields in Australia. These are really stable, long-term jobs that we should be conserving for Australians and making sure that we do what is necessary to skill our workers up to be able to take their rightful place in the oil and gas industry given our ascendancy in this industry worldwide. But this is not just a problem for the future. I have no shame in saying that I support the unions standing up for Australian jobs; I 100 per cent support the unions standing up for Australian jobs. There are around 500 unemployed seafarers at the moment in Western Australia and I have been told today that Saipan, the Italian company that is subcontracting to Inpex in terms of the laying of the pipes for the pipeline from Western Australia to Darwin, have indicated that they propose, presumably once this legislation is through, to bring in eight foreign vessels to be doing that work, that they will not be employing Australian workers on that job. They will be having foreign crewed vessels laying those pipes from that Inpex project. That is already an immediate loss of Australian jobs. We have seafarers that are trained and skilled, we have got young guys and women doing their training that want that opportunity with that Inpex project, and once this legislation is through those opportunities are going to vanish. I just do not know how you justify this. These companies overwhelmingly are owned by overseas interests. One of the ways in which the Australian community gets benefit out of these oil and gas projects is by the creation of these well-paid jobs for Australian workers. That is what has caused Australian workers to get in there and be behind the oil and gas industry. If we see this wholesale employment of overseas workers without even requiring a 457 visa, without even the most rudimentary test being applied to see if there were Australians that can do that job, the oil and gas industry will start losing the support of the Australian community. 17:28 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The bill that is now before us seeks to undo the knee-jerk policy undertaken by the previous government which was, frankly, pandering to special interests that make-or-break every member of this Labor Party from the leader down, and that is the union movement. Once again we have heard from members opposite in speaking to this bill the usual demonisation of skilled migration. I am not sure whether they undertake those same attacks against skilled migrants when they out in the community visiting many different ethnic communities and talking about skilled migration and the way they come in here and vote on skilled migration, but one thing I do know is that skilled migration has been one of the key pillars on which this country is built. It always amazes me that those opposite are always happy to encourage those who are coming the wrong way and do nothing about that but seem to take great issue when people come the right way, particularly when people come and get involved in the economy, contribute to the bottom line of this country and live the whole principle of Australia that those who get a fair go are those who have a go. Those opposite seem to have a real problem with that, and that has been demonstrated again in this bill, as it was when the original act that this bill seeks to repeal was introduced. The act that this bill seeks now to repeal sprung wholly from the attempts of the previous government to force what I would argue is an anticompetitive regulation upon industry after it discovered that existing legislation did not permit the extension of union power to offshore installations beyond the universally accepted reach of Australia's migration zone. Members opposite talk about unions standing up for the workers—if only they did—but they tend to stand up for union officials, which seems to be their record in this place. In this debate we have seen those attacks and those positions maintained by those opposite. A previous minister for immigration—and there were quite a few last year; we had three in the space of six months—sought to challenge the long-held convention and impose domestic migration law on workers far outside Australia's migration zone. The influence of the unions on that government was so strong that it bowed to their demands and tied up resource projects, installations and pipelines with union red tape, stifling business and investment. In the case of Allseas Construction SA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship the government were challenged to provide any just reason or justification for their attempt to impose domestic migration regulation upon offshore workers, and they could not do that. In May 2012 the Federal Court ruled that the two vessels in question were not Australian resources installations within the meaning of the Migration Act whilst they were wholly or principally engaged in operations relating to the installation of offshore pipelines. The court ruled that the vessels and the noncitizens working on board these vessels were not within the migration zone and, therefore, were not working within the migration zone as defined by section 5(1) of the act and could not be required to hold visas in order to undertake the work they had been contracted to perform. Contrary to the claims of the then immigration minister of the previous government, the Allseas litigation did not expose any loophole in Australia's migration system that was being exploited by the industry. There was no loophole. No loophole in fact existed. In this vein the same motivations were glaringly apparent when the previous minister for immigration launched his attack on skilled migration in the 457 visa legislation. The previous Labor government sought, through the offshore resources amendment, to create a problem where there actually was none and to demonise the legitimate employment of highly skilled workers who were beyond the reach of unions and added to the productivity of those projects. Australia is one of the top 10 energy producers in the world and each year our oil and gas industries make up about 2.5 per cent of GDP. This activity generates nearly $30 billion in revenue every year. Energy producers contribute around $9 billion in direct tax payments and supply 58 per cent of Australia's primary energy needs. At the time when the act that this bill seeks to repeal was introduced into this place the then government could not provide any indication, nor indeed sought to acknowledge in any significant way, the increased costs that the extension of Australia's migration zone must necessarily burden the energy and resources industry with. Apart from the not insignificant costs attached to formally sponsoring workers, union interests clearly sought to force outrageous wage demands upon the industry. In May last year the maritime workers' union sought to impose wage requirements for cooks working on offshore north-west gas projects of $230,000 a year. How can Australia possibly hope to compete with the rest of the world and attract critical growth industries to projects in our territorial waters if this sort of union driven, anticompetitive and highly interventionist regulation is allowed to be forced on industry with union red tape at the behest of union interests, represented in those who sit opposite? Not every worker needed for every energy industry project can be found in Australia. Where they can be, they should be employed. That is what the law is designed to achieve. Much of the work undertaken on offshore installations is highly specialised, requiring someone who has considerable expertise performing very specific tasks. Often the projects of the type being developed off Australia have never been established here before. It is entirely reasonable, therefore, to expect that some portion of the experts required must necessarily be sourced from outside of Australia. An inquiry by the Inspector of Transport Security in 2012 into the offshore oil and gas resources sector security clearly identified the legitimate need for an internationally sourced workforce and found that companies are increasingly recruiting personnel from overseas due to skill shortages in Australia. Forcing industry to wade through unnecessary red tape simply to bring these critical workers to their operations will inevitably slow down productivity and thus the attractiveness of investing in Australia. When the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill last year the key resources industry body—the Australian Mines and Metals Association—offered a very clear warning of the detrimental impact on the continued attraction of foreign investment that the former government's reforms to their recruitment and movement of specialist workers would bring about. Executive Director Mr Scott Barklamb stated: Australia is not the only place in the world with offshore oil and gas resources. International investors are all too aware of and are in the business of evaluating competing resource destinations. Despite the clear significance of the impact of the reforms upon the future growth of the energy and resources sector in Australia, at the time of the introduction of the act that this bill now seeks to repeal the previous government could not even quantify or estimate the number of foreign workers in the offshore maritime zone. So absurd was the entire basis for that act that the previous government could not even show how significant the apparent issue it sought to address was. One would have imagined that any government with even a remote sense of responsibility would have made some effort to determine the nature of the problem before they just willingly accepted the union's proposed solution. The Federal Court may have found that Australia's migration zone did not extend to certain offshore installations or vessels, but these workplaces hardly operate in a secret vacuum. The offshore resources industry is subject to a plethora of domestic regulatory systems set out in a variety of often overlapping pieces of federal, state and territory legislation. Through these, Australian law provides a wide range of mechanisms that operate to safeguard those who work on board installations or vessels in our waters. A large proportion of these installations operate under the oversight of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, which has responsibility for the regulation of the occupational health and safety of workers on offshore facilities, wells and well operations in Australian waters and in waters where state powers have been conferred. By law, offshore petroleum activities cannot begin before the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority has assessed and approved a detailed risk management plan, including how an organisation will manage risks to workers' safety and health. Despite the claims of the maritime workers union and other union interests, no need exists to extend any additional protection or safeguards to workers on offshore installations. The claim simply formed part of a concerted campaign to render it near impossible for the energy and resources industry to employ foreign workers. As I have stated, and many industry specialists have also asserted, this protectionist stance is simply not sustainable. It adds to sovereign risk in relation to investments, it undermines the flow of foreign investment to Australia and places significant hindrances on the efforts of any company to develop offshore installations in Australia's territorial waters and therefore generate revenue and further employment opportunities within Australia. The Prime Minister has said Australia is open for business, and this bill is consistent with and seeks to demonstrate this objective. The coalition government will support the suite of structures that operate to protect workers, but we will not implement policy to serve the anticompetitive will of special interests, in particular the unions seeking to protect the interests of unions. The bill helps restore the confidence that both industry and the Australian people can have in our nation's future growth and opportunities in this sector. I commend the bill to the House.

The House divided. [17:43]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Vasta)

 77 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S (teller) Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robb, AJ Robert, SR Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Varvaris, N Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 55 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Gray, G Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP King, CF Leigh, AK Macklin, JL MacTiernan, AJGC Marles, RD McGowan, C Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 4144 17:50 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 4144

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014

Second Reading 4144 17:51 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter The bill before the House is a very important one: it will impact on Australia's $48-billion agricultural sector, it will affect Australia's multibillion-dollar plant sites and crop protection industry, it will have implications for our natural environment, and, most importantly, it is about the protection of human health. These are all very important points but for the opposition the last point—that is, human health—is paramount. Ideally, we want a low-cost regulatory regime—one which permits the use of chemicals in a safe way and in a manner which maximises productivity and farm-gate profits. According to the minister, the main aim of this bill is to lower the regulatory burden of the regime. That is an objective which Labor supports. Indeed, the former government's bill that gave effect to the regime which was about to come into effect on 1 July if this bill were not successful, promoted red tape reduction as a key objective. The question is: does this bill before the House tonight strike the right balance between that aspiration and human health objectives—human health, as it relates to those who use the sprays involved and those who will consume the products sprayed further down the track? Again, this is a primary question for Labor. As political parties we must always strive to ensure the burdens of our regulations are as low as is possible, but regulatory regimes do and always will impose regulatory burden. People listening to this debate tonight will be surprised to learn that currently there are some 11,700 separate agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines—or agvet products, as they are generally known—listed with the regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA. They are not just used in agriculture. Indeed, believe it or not, members, I was using one such spray in my garden on the weekend—under the direction, of course, of my wife! So it is not just about agriculture as we generally see it. Those listening to the debate can see that the APVMA has a big job. First, testing the safety and effectiveness of chemicals, then registering them for safe use, and then, in turn, reassessing them as new information and data emerges about their safety. The controversial part of this bill is that which repeals the 2013 bill's mandatory re-registration scheme. I will come back to that point a little later. It is now almost 20 years since the Labor government established the successful regime we now have in place and, indeed, established a national regulator. Last year the former Labor government sought to further modernise and strengthen the regime in response to both community concern about the impact on human health and its efficiency on the regulatory burden front. It is pleasing that this bill does not seek to unravel Labor's reforms entirely. The reforms in Labor's bill were substantial and extensive. They were primarily about improving the predictability and transparency of the APVMA's decision-making processes and providing greater reassurances to the community that agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines used in Australia are safe. Apart from re-registration, the 2013 reforms encouraged the development of more modern and safer chemicals, and the cost reductions to industry of keeping existing chemicals in the market by: (1) improving the consistency, predictability and transparency of agvet chemical assessments, and aligning the regulatory effort with chemical risk; (2) reducing red tape by reforming assessment processes for agvet chemical applications for approval, registration and variation for better efficiency and effectiveness and improving the timeliness of agvet chemical approvals, registrations and chemical reviews; and (3) removing disincentives and providing greater incentives for companies to invest through improved intellectual property protection. The reforms improve community confidence also in the regulatory regime by: (1) reducing the backlog of chemicals requiring review; (2) providing the regulator with contemporary compliance powers to improve its ability to protect humans, animals and the environment; and (3) by improving the ability of the APBVA to enforce compliance with its regulatory decisions, for example, by introducing civil penalties and infringement notices. The current bill before the House is divided into two schedules. Schedule 1 removes the need for mandatory re-registration, as I have indicated, of active constituents. That means approvals will remain in force until such time as the approval is revoked by the APBVA. This is the most controversial initiative in this bill. Once registered, chemicals need to be renewed on an annual basis. Schedule 1 also allows less frequent renewals for particular products including, in some cases, up to five years rather than on an annual basis. Schedule 2 of the bill deals with variations to approvals and, according to the government, seeks to streamline simple variations to approval registration for labelling. In his second reading speech, the minister argued this 2014 bill further builds on the reforms of Labor's 2013 bill. It does so, he says, by (1) the introduction of a new process for the notification of the simplest changes to a chemical registration and a very simple application process for less complex variations; (2) by reducing the frequency of renewal, removing annual returns about active constituents and improving information access provisions; and (3) rewriting provisions will allow the APVMA to collect information from suppliers of chemicals to make sure products being supplied are the same as those the APBVA registered. I am not sure these are exhaustive so I do not mean to suggest they are. The curious thing about these changes and in particular the revocation of the mandatory registration is that they are being sought before the 2013 act actually comes into effect. As I indicated, that date is 1 July 2014. In other words, the government has passed judgement on Labor's reforms, most of which it appears to support, before they have even been given a chance to work. The key point of difference between the 2013 bill and the 2014 bill is the mandatory reregistration regime. And no doubt this will be an ongoing key point of debate both in this chamber and in the other place. The opposition, I can announce, will not oppose or seek to amend the 2014 bill in this chamber. In other words, we do not claim that the 2013 regime is necessarily the only way of protecting human health and the natural environment while also providing farmers and other consumers with affordable and appropriately easy-to-access crop protection. Rather, we will allow the bill passage through the House but we have referred the bill to a Senate inquiry for further review. I note that the inquiry is already underway and that already the committee has received some 22 submissions, 20 of which support the removal of re-registration. It is an important guide for me, as Labor's agricultural spokesman, that amongst the 20 organisations supporting the change is the National Farmers' Federation, other peak industry groups and, indeed, the Queensland government. The change has been opposed by the WWF and by Choice. I should say I truly believe their voices are also important. On important issues such as this I am always determined not to form a political view or worse play politics with the issue. Rather, I am determined and my party is determined to do what is best for public health and for the environment and what is best for the agriculture sector. It is this approach which will determine our final position on this bill. The test for the Senate committee will be the extent to which it satisfies us that the changes being proposed in this bill do not reduce protections to human health. That is very important for the opposition. I do accept that subjecting every chemical to a re-registration process every seven to 14 or 15 years does not necessarily guarantee the best outcome. I am more than happy to have that debate and have the Senate committee test that proposition. I also accept that there was an argument that it may be more effective to ensure that the APVMA's limited resources—very limited resources—are free to be directed to a robust risk management review regime and to properly respond to new information and data which may trigger a review in a more timely way. Just to reinforce that point, if a red flag goes up on a particular chemical we want the APVMA to have the resources to immediately, properly and thoroughly investigate the concern that has been raised by that new information. I do understand, as a result of a number of briefings I have received, including from the department, that there is nothing in the 2013 bill which dictates that re-registration also triggers a review. In other words the 2013 bill might make mandatory re-registration every seven to 15 years but re-registration will not necessarily mean an in-depth review of the chemical concerned. This should not necessarily be seen as a deficiency in the 2013 bill, I am not conceding that because it would have the potential if it were otherwise to trigger expensive time-consuming and potentially unnecessary reviews at great cost to the companies who produce the chemicals in particular. It is now over to the Senate committee. A committee inquiry which I will be watching with great interest as I am sure many other members will. When it has completed its inquiry, and made its recommendations Labor will be better placed to form a better position on the bill before the House this evening. 18:02 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 amends three acts within the agriculture portfolio as follows: the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Act 2013, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products (Collection of Levy) Act 1994. Importantly the bill implements the 2013 election commitment to remove re-registration and includes additional reforms to improve the efficiency of agvet chemicals regulation. It was an election commitment to remove the reapproval and re-registration scheme and introduce other efficiency measures. Industry needs an efficient regulator so that it can have timely access to new technology to reduce the cost of production and provide options to reduce resistance and to continue to provide the highest quality food both domestically and to international markets. These reforms aim to reduce red tape for farmers and other businesses involved in this sector to encourage development of new chemistry with a range of benefits for farmers and other users, the environment and the broader community. Agriculture is one of the major economic drivers in my home state of Tasmania. The latest figures reveal the total exports from Tasmania in 2011-12 were valued at $3.4 billion, with agriculture representing 30 per cent, or $1 billion, of that total. Farmers are also significant land managers in my state, particularly in my electorate of Lyons, the biggest Tasmanian electorate comprising more than half of the state's total area. Nearly one-third of Tasmania's land area of 68,300 square kilometres is committed to agriculture. This means that agriculture is one of the most important and largest contributors to the Tasmanian economy, proportionately more than any other state in Australia. These figures illustrate dramatically that Tasmania must keep its agriculture sector viable, profitable and competitive. In a former life I spent many years working for an agricultural services business in Tasmania and whilst not involved directly in the selling of and advising on agricultural chemicals, Craig Fife, who ran that division, worked closely with many producers. These producers understand that there are certain tasks and certain things that just cannot be done and that improvements in the way they can access, with appropriate regulation, agricultural chemicals is critical. I am pleased today to support the amendment to the agricultural and veterinary chemicals legislation, which will remove the re-approval and re-registration scheme that was part of changes to the legislation adopted by the 2013 amendment act. I take this stand on good advice from my constituency, particularly from the agriculture community led by Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association chief executive, Jan Davis. The TFGA support the proposed amendment to the agricultural and veterinary chemicals legislation because of the importance of chemicals to farmers to control weeds, pests and other diseases. Farmers restricted in their use of chemicals will become less competitive because they will either have to accept reduced productivity in many instances or because they will have to move to alternative, and very often more expensive, control mechanisms. Rules and regulations are indeed important—particularly when it comes to chemicals of any kind—but so is a prosperous, profitable and viable agricultural sector. Indeed, agriculture will increasingly become a major driver of jobs in my home state of Tasmania. At every opportunity I get, I encourage young people to look at agriculture as a career opportunity. Such a diverse range of careers are available, from science through to economics and trades that are available for a range of different careers that young people might embark upon. More than 8½ thousand Tasmanians are in fact employed directly in agriculture, food and fibre value-adding, which makes up nearly nine per cent of my state's working population. In a state which has some of the worst unemployment figures in Australia, particularly in the case of youth unemployment, we strive to maintain one of our important and most critical economic drivers. But it is not just Tasmanian farmers who are telling me that they want legislative change to stop extra layers of duplication and unnecessary red tape burdening users of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Dairy farmers support the government's initiative to modernise and simplify this legislation and to reduce the red tape associated with the use of agvet chemicals on farms. The Australian Dairy Farmers made a submission in writing on this proposed amendment legislation. Dairy farmers, like so many others, need access to safe, affordable and effective agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines so they can manage the pests and diseases that would otherwise threaten production of safe food. It is also important for them to look after the health and welfare of their animals. Dairying is one of the state's fastest growing agricultural sectors, with major expansions in the north-west, in my colleague the member for Braddon's electorate, and also within the electorate of Lyons in the Meander Valley and the Northern Midlands. In the Southern Midlands, we expect to see the rollout of the Midlands Irrigation Scheme very soon. The potential in the Derwent Valley is enormous as it is in the area around Sorell. New irrigation development in that area will, no doubt, see the expansion of dairy production in that part of the state. I was fortunate on Tuesday last week to go to a meeting in Hamilton, in the Derwent Valley in my electorate, where Fonterra have just announced that they will also be sourcing milk from southern Tasmania. This is a major commitment and a major step forward for the dairy farmers and the potential production in that part of Tasmania. Prior to now they have only had access to one purchaser of that milk. So that expansion will provide a lot more competition. In fact, even as we stand at the moment, to fulfil the capacity that exists for stainless steel and to value-add local production in Tasmania—which we expect to approach a billion litres of milk in the next couple of years—it is estimated that in my state we will need at least 70,000 more dairy cows. That will involve up to 400 people with a range of skills—from on farm through to extension and work involved within the value-adding and processing sector in the state—and, ultimately, an injection of around $650 million worth of capital just to fill the stainless steel that has been built in, so great is the capacity and the potential for dairy in the state of Tasmania. In the next couple of months we also expect to see the launch of the Midlands Irrigation Scheme in my electorate of Lyons. Many people would not be aware of this, but the area to be irrigated under this very well designed and very well managed scheme—which will be delivered on time and on budget—will irrigate an area quite similar to that that is irrigated in the Ord scheme in the north of Western Australia. We want to do everything we can to support and encourage farmers that are prepared to take a risk and often move away from more traditional enterprises, such as beef or sheep grazing and, in some cases, cropping, into a new area that involves a lot of capital infrastructure and a lot of investment on farm and the purchasing of the available water that is coming online now. We want to support those farmers, and the dairy industry tells us that the re-registration process has been an unnecessary burden. Outside of the agricultural sector, despite the chaotic fallout to the industry in my state, and particularly in the electorate of Lyons, from the previous Labor-Green government's Tasmanian forests agreement, forestry also remains one of the most important industries in the state of Tasmania. The Australian Forest Products Association, with its strong Tasmanian representation, tells us that chemical use is critical to maintaining and improving the plantation estates' productivity and competitiveness to increasingly meet future wood fibre and product needs. It is not lost on me that the irony here is that the native forest sector within Tasmania has a natural ability to regenerate after harvesting and does not require any chemicals at all. This is sometimes lost on those who have an ideological opposition to such an important and, I would argue, perhaps one of the most renewable resources that we are blessed with. The forest products industry also has a strong interest in agvet chemical regulation reform. It too supports our amendments to remove the mandatory reapproval and re-registration provisions introduced by the 2013 act, describing them, in this case, as unnecessary. These amendments will save the agvet chemical industry nationally $1.3 million in time and fees by removing duplication and unnecessary red tape—and I struggle to find an argument against that. At the same time, the amendments ensure that farmers and the broader community can continue to have access to effective and safe agvet chemicals. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority estimated that re-registration would cost them alone an extra $2 million per year to process and assess applications, with all costs ultimately to be recovered from industry, which makes industry and industry participants, not least of all farmers, less profitable. We cannot let this happen. Industry has calculated that removing the reapproval and re-registration scheme will save farmers and other stakeholders nearly $9 million annually in red tape and associated costs, while maintaining access to effective and safe agvet chemicals. I would encourage the House to support the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 and to support the agricultural sector, particularly in my home state of Tasmania, which we all want to see flourish into the future. 18:15 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I am pleased to stand to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. Since the government was elected in September last year we have heard a lot of rhetoric from the government, particularly about regulation. We have seen almost a demonising of regulation. But it is actually heartening to see that, in the case of regulation regarding the safety of chemicals, the government has taken a slightly more modest approach and left much of the work that the Labor government did over the last six years in place. We on this side of the House still have some doubt about the efficacy of the amendments as they are, but, as the shadow minister has said, we are prepared to wait and see the outcome of the Senate inquiry into this bill to see whether it will be effective. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation. This is regulation that affects the use of chemicals that are used in agriculture and veterinary medicines which are registered under the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA. There are about 11,700 of them currently in use around Australia. They are the chemicals that protect crops and animals from all sorts of pests and diseases and, in doing so, help improve the productivity and competitiveness of Australia's rural industries. But, of course, chemicals have pluses and minuses, as we all know. The regulatory process ensures that the agricultural and veterinary chemicals that we use are safe for humans—there are a whole range of issues relating to that—and also that they do not damage the environment. A whole range of stakeholders in this area have had a lot to say about this over a long time, including some environmental groups; consumer groups, quite often with people who live in cities, as I do; farmers; and people who work on farms. There are many stakeholders, and at times the arguments are quite aggressive. I am a city girl, as I quite often say. I would prefer, like many city people, that the fruit and vegetables I eat are as natural as possible. At home I buy insect larvae, costing about $40, to keep four small trees free of pests, so I would not suggest that any farmer try and do that, as effective as it is. Two friends of mine own a mango farm and they leave the ants on the mangoes because that keeps the bats at bay. As long as the ants are there, the bats do not like the taste of the mangoes. But it means that the market for those mangoes is quite small, because they have the speckles from the ants on them. Those mangoes can be sold to an organic group. But you would not assume for a minute that we could have the kind of strong agricultural sector that we have on a large scale without some incredibly important chemicals. Back in 2008 the federal government tasked the Productivity Commission with studying the existing arrangements for the regulation of chemicals and plastics in Australia. The purpose was to assess the impact of current regulation on the productivity and competitiveness of the chemicals and plastics industry, the Australian industry and the economy as a whole, together with the effectiveness of the regulations in addressing public health, environmental and occupational health and safety issues and substances of national security interest. The Productivity Commission did its job, as it always does. It concluded that the effectiveness and efficiency of APVMA assessments could be improved. It stated: The effectiveness of the industrial chemicals and agvet schemes is limited given that all existing chemicals were grandfathered, without modern assessment, at the inception of the schemes. These constitute the vast majority of chemicals 'approved' for use in Australia. NICNAS and APVMA have programs for assessing existing chemicals, with review priorities determined on the basis of perceived health and environmental risks. So far only a tiny fraction of existing chemicals have been assessed. Initiatives to greatly accelerate the pace of review under both programs are warranted. In particular, NICNAS should improve its engagement with international existing chemical review programs, and make greater use of modelling tools. As a result of that Productivity Commission review, COAG became involved. It tasked the Primary Industries Ministerial Council to bring forward to COAG for consideration in the first half of 2010 a proposal for a single national framework to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. You have to remember that various chemicals and substances have approvals processes in the states as well. This brought the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under a national scheme. Flowing from that, the parliament passed the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and there was an amendment in 2013. Now we have a new government. Before these new arrangements come into place, the government has decided to wind back some of the new mechanisms. In particular, this amendment bill removes the need for mandatory re-registration of active ingredients; removes end dates for approvals and last renewal dates for registrations so that approvals will no longer end after a particular period, which was seven years for high-risk and 15 years for low-risk chemicals; allows registrations to be renewed perpetually; and removes a number of redundant provisions. That is quite a significant winding back of a range of measures which went through a very lengthy process, dating back to a Productivity Commission review in 2008 and an extensive COAG cooperative process over a couple of years. As the shadow minister said, we are not opposing this bill in the House. However, we are waiting on the outcome and findings of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry, just so that we can satisfy ourselves that the health of Australians and the environment are still protected. It is also incredibly important that transparency and certainty are provided under the new scheme, and that is something that I will be looking out for in the committee's report. It is incredibly important, particularly for farmers and for workers, that there is a level of certainty and predictability so that they know that the chemicals they are using will be usable in the foreseeable future. That is really all I have to say on this. There was an extensive process, which I think was a good process, which led to some significant improvements in the registration of chemicals and the approval process. This bill winds those back to some extent, and we are now waiting on the Senate committee's report. Thank you. 18:23 Dr STONE EM6 Murray This a very important bill. We know that Australia can produce some of the best food and fibre of any nation. We also know we have some of the highest costs of production. We know that is related to our labour costs, but a lot of this is also related to the input costs of things like farm chemicals. Unfortunately, the red tape that surrounds the whole business of applying for the use of those chemicals to be approved in this country was made much worse under the previous government. They introduced different legislation which we must now amend by removing reapproval and re-registration through the bill we are debating tonight: the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. Australia has one of the best reputations for chemical-free production. Of course, we have to use some chemicals to manage pests and diseases, but we have such a stringent regime and such well credentialled primary producers that it is extraordinarily rare—in fact, I cannot think of a single case—that any products on our shelves that are made, produced, grown or manufactured in Australia or products from Australia that are exported to another country have been held up as chemically contaminated. We have an extraordinarily good and fiercely defended reputation. But we cannot be bogged down in the additional red tape that Labor imposed on us—and we are not quite sure why. They just had a frenzy of additional regulation and layers of bureaucracy which meant it took more time to do the job and made it even more expensive for food producers to do their job. So this is a very important bill indeed. There was a very careful and closely considered committee inquiry that examined the Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Not surprisingly, there was a dissenting report, which said: … we believe one of the bill's key modifications; the intention to install a system of mandatory re-registration lacks sufficient justification and is likely to create a new layer of compliance and bureaucracy on the pesticide and veterinary medicines industry without demonstrable improvements in efficiency or outcomes and that extra costs will be passed along to Australian farmers. I say 'hear, hear' to that. That is exactly what it did. Fortunately, we as the coalition have come into power before too much damage could be done by that Labor bill. Tonight, we set things right. In case Australian consumers who are listening to this are not aware of the problems of chemical contamination in food supplies or food chains elsewhere in the world, I remind you that more than three million hectares of China's farmland is now: … too polluted with heavy metals and other chemicals to use for growing food, a Cabinet official said Monday, highlighting a problem that is causing growing public concern. This is from an article published in December 2013. It goes on: The threat from pollution to China's food supply has been overshadowed by public alarm at smog and water contamination but is gaining attention following scandals over tainted rice and other crops. The government triggered complaints in February when it refused to release results of a nationwide survey of soil pollution, declaring them a state secret. The figure given at a news conference by Wang Shiyuan, a deputy minister of the Ministry of Land and Resources, would be about 2 percent of China's … arable land. Some scientists have given higher estimates of as much as 24.3 million acres, or one-sixth of the total arable land, though it is unclear how much of that would be too badly contaminated for farming. Clearly, we in Australia have to jealously guard the low risk, almost zero risk, of chemical contamination of our arable land. We have to make sure that we do not compromise our current clean, green credentials with things like the insatiable search for coal seam gas, which we are not yet sure about in terms of groundwater contamination and, ultimately, perhaps soil contamination as the contaminated aquifers are brought to the surface and 'ponded' on what was arable farmland. We have to watch that issue very closely as a nation. I have enormous sympathy for people in agriculture right now, fighting the good fight in the most arable parts—for example, in parts of Queensland and into New South Wales around the Liverpool Plains and Tamworth area. The explosive growth of Chinese industry, overuse of farm chemicals and lax environmental enforcement have left swathes of their countryside tainted by lead, cadmium, pesticides and other toxins. The whole business of China's contamination of their food chain struck home in February-March this year when SPC Ardmona became very concerned after finding that lead levels in cans of peaches imported from China were so high that they were a risk for human consumption, particularly by the young or the elderly. A lot of that canned peach came in the three-kilogram sizes, which are typically bought by the food services sector, say, for aged care, hospitals, prisons and the Defence Force, and of course the consumer in those circumstances—the elderly lady or the Defence Force personnel or people in custody—have no knowledge of where the food is from when it is served to them in their meals. We have found that the chemical contamination of those canned peaches, the lead contamination, was way above what is safe for human consumption. So you have to ask: how did that heavy metal contaminated product get into Australia? Besides very important veterinary and chemical legislation, we are supposed to have very, very sound and rigorous testing of our food in terms of any additives and contaminants such as pesticides, antibiotics, microorganisms and metals. We have a whole industry of testing food standards. The standards are described in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code as applying to all food produced or imported for sale in Australia and New Zealand and, as I say, this code is rigorous. It includes standards for labelling of additives and contaminants. So how does some of this product get onto our shelves and, in particular, get fed to our most vulnerable? Of course there is a huge cost incentive to pick up imports and sell them into the food services sector because, for example, a three-kilo tin of imported peaches sells for some $6 in Australia compared to $9 for the Australian-made product, so there is a huge incentive there to cut costs if you are in one of those sectors like aged care or a hospital. We test for a whole range of contaminants, particularly chemicals, but I am concerned that our testing regime under Labor was compromised with cutting costs and with a very tiny proportion of foods being tested. Surveillance foods are all imported foods that are not considered risk foods. How does it work? When risk foods are imported by a new importer or from a new manufacturer, 100 per cent of the shipments are tested. The risk foods are detained by Customs for testing and are not released until the test results are returned. But once there are five consecutive shipments passed—in other words, there are no problems with them in all tests—the rate of testing drops to 25 per cent of shipments. After 20 consecutive shipments have passed this 25 per cent of sampling, the testing rate drops to five per cent of shipments only. If you are a clever importer, you make sure that that first number of shipments are absolutely first-class. They are from uncontaminated areas, perhaps in China. Perhaps they are from other-country sources or re-exported out of your country to make sure that they pass those first tests. Once you have got to that magic figure of only five per cent of your imports being tested, then virtually anything goes. These shipments are not held until the test results are known. They pass through Customs. If the food fails a test in the Department of Agriculture, one of the five per cent, then the relevant food regulatory authorities can do a product recall, but this is at the authority's discretion. Of course once a surveillance food fails a test, then future shipments from that importer and manufacturer are increased back to the 100 per cent rate and so that system starts again until you get down once more to just five per cent of your products being tested because you have had five consecutive shipments pass all tests. That must be how the Chinese contaminated product got through, I assume. I assume that if it was properly tested for contamination it would have been found. Clearly, those samples were not tested. I am most anxious that our regime within Australia, guided by our own agricultural and veterinary chemicals legislation, is the best in the world. It needs to be, and when we say a product is produced or grown or manufactured in Australia that must be the simple truth. Our current labelling laws of course allow a lot of misinformation to pass into the public arena. That is another issue we as a coalition must deal with, the fact that Codex Alimentarius allows that if 50 per cent of the value of the product has been met or has been incurred in Australia, including labour and overheads and all of those values, you can call the product 'Made in Australia'. That should not be the case. If it is more than 50 per cent transformed in Australia—for example, if your fish comes in frozen from Thailand but is crumbed in Melbourne—then you can call that 'Made in Australia' as well. So we have labelling problems which can mask serious contamination issues as well. But I am concerned in this debate about chemical contamination. We have got to make sure that when a consumer—whether in the United States, Canada, China or Singapore—sees 'Product of Australia', they feel totally assured that the product does not have any chemical contamination, that it is some of the cleanest and safest food to be found anywhere in the world, and that they are prepared to pay a premium for that high value-added product, say, a baby food or a food for the elderly. That is what we are aiming for in Australia. We do not need our agribusiness industry to be tied down and shackled with cost imposts forced upon them through what Labor tried to do. This amendment gives us still one of the most stringent and vigorous agricultural and veterinary chemical legislative regimes in the world. I commend that. That is a very important thing that we do. All of the safeguards will remain in place in terms of making sure that nothing gets past the APVMA. It will retain all powers to recall unsafe chemical products, or suspend or cancel the registration of a chemical product if the product no longer meets criteria for registration. In fact these provisions were recently strengthened and streamlined by the amendment act. So as a representative of the food bowl of Australia, which supplies more than 25 per cent of dairy produce of Australia, more than 80 per cent of our pears, more than 90 per cent of Australia's kiwifruit, the best beef product that can be found in Australia and the best oilseeds, I am most concerned that our government does away with all of the rubbish that was put through by the previous government, which did not understand anything beyond the tram tracks, beyond metropolitan Australia. So I commend most heartily this Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 and I hope it has a very speedy passage through both this and the other house. I thank you. 18:37 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Murray in her intelligent and mostly balanced contribution in this debate on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. I am a member who represents a regional electorate, and I can inform the member for Murray that there are many on this side of the House who know full well what life looks like beyond the rail tracks, as we call them in New South Wales. I have found common cause with many of the observations she made, particularly where she was talking about the importance of the reputation that Australian agricultural produce enjoys, deservedly, in my submission, for being of the highest quality and free from infection and contamination by toxins. This, and this area of policy, is where economic policy intersects with public health concerns, because this is a reputation that we must maintain and it is also a reputation that must be supported by the facts. So the test of the legislation and public policy in this area is, quite simply: how do we ensure that we can have the highest level and the highest protection for consumers without damaging the important economic viability of the farms and other organisations who rely on these industrial chemicals? Some background to the legislation: in 2008 the Productivity Commission undertook research into the arrangements for the regulation of chemicals and plastics in Australia. The Productivity Commission took a broad view around the whole industry and economy, encompassing regulations, productivity and competitiveness within the chemicals industry. Public health, environmental and workplace safety and health issues were all considered, as were impacts on our national security. The Productivity Commission highlighted a number of issues with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—the APMVA—and suggested that it would benefit from tighter assessment processes. The Productivity Commission highlighted that many chemicals in use had never been subjected to modern testing. In fact, the majority of existing chemicals had been grandfathered onto its approval list, now managed by the APMVA and the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessments Schedule, fondly known as the NICNAS. It is worth pausing to consider that, because previous speakers have made the point that most chemicals in Australia—the vast majority, in fact—have never been subjected to modern testing. What does that mean? The member for Hunter said in his contribution that there are about 11,000—in fact, the number is 11,700—agvet chemicals in active use in Australia. Of that number around 8,350 are agricultural chemicals, with 2,230 of those agricultural chemicals containing active constituents. The vast majority of these have not been subject to modern assessment. So whilst the relevant agencies have authority to test any chemical based on health or environmental fears, there has not been any systematic approach to this previously. After the 2010 election, the Labor government undertook significant reform based on the report of the Productivity Commission. An ad hoc review process would remain in place, and any stakeholder could nominate a chemical for safety review: the industry itself, the regulator acting on its own accord or any individual only need raise concern with the regulator to trigger a review. Labor's reform provided a greater level of assurance that existing chemicals and products do not pose undue risk to human health or the environment. Further to this, and because of the improved regulatory framework put in place under Labor, public confidence is boosted in the regulators. Indeed, confidence in government to fulfil its duty to protect and serve our people and environment is also strengthened. And it is worth observing that when something goes wrong—when a product is contaminated—public attention turns inevitably to government and says: 'Where was the regulator? They should have been on the job—where was the regulator?' It falls to government to ensure that the right standards are put in place; that it does not throttle industry but ensures appropriate safety standards are in place. Let us talk about the new reforms. The government seeks to give us assurances that the bill on which I have risen to speak will not weaken the environmental or human health protections. But I do note that the government's bill is actually removing the provisions in Labor's reforms that would mandate chemicals being reapproved, thereby subjecting them to modern testing. Remember, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, I have already said that well over 11,000 of these chemicals are in use and that the vast majority of them have never been tested before. Some may say, and in fact they have argued, that there have been farmers who have been using these chemicals for over 40, 50 or 60 years, and there is some force in that argument. But they have been building houses out of asbestos in the area that I come from for 20, 30 or 40 years as well, and that was supposed to be—if you will pardon the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker—as 'safe as houses'. We now know that it was not, and that an appropriate regulation should have been put in place back then. So we do have some reservations. The government's bill removes Labor's registration of chemicals requirement, which is based on a chemical's risk profile, that it would be mandated every seven to 15 years. The bill before us will mean that higher risk chemicals would no longer be required to be retested every seven years and chemicals with a lower risk profile every 15 years. The purpose of the reform when it was introduced by Labor was to ensure that never again would we look at our register of chemicals and ask ourselves: 'Well, which of these have been subject to the relevant, up-to-date modern tests? Which are safe to use and which are not?' We would know; we would have confidence that every chemical in use in Australia has been assessed based on the most recent and relevant knowledge. So I do have some reservations about the bill, that by removing these requirements we are in fact removing the guardrail, the protections that we expect a government to deliver. I am probably not alone in that because I read in some detail the explanatory memorandum which was prepared by the Hon. Barnaby Joyce, the responsible minister. Presumably he did author this explanatory memorandum and he says at page 2, under the heading 'Addressing concerns with chemical product quality': Removing re-registration removes an opportunity for the APVMA to confirm that chemical products supplied to the market are the same as the product evaluated and registered by the APVMA. This can be addressed in part by improving the ability of the APVMA to require a person who supplies an agvet chemical product in Australia to provide information (for example, a chemical analysis) about the product they are supplying. So you can see within the explanatory memorandum to this bill itself that it is hardly an ironclad guarantee. You may well argue that nobody can give an ironclad guarantee in these matters, but it is hardly the sort of statement that gives us absolute faith and confidence that the new regulations are going to put in place the sorts of protections that we require. You would expect in an explanatory memorandum prepared by the government itself that the government would be proposing, or have included, a form of words that gave us much more confidence about the system that it is recommending before the House. So we have reservations. We will not take an obstructionist approach. I know members opposite have talked a lot about the importance of removing red tape, but I say to them that it is important, particularly when it comes to industrial health and safety and the regulation of chemicals, that you get the difference between red tape and a guardrail. And the provisions in legislation such as this take on more the character of a guardrail than of red tape. So we do have well-founded reservations. We have said we will not oppose the legislation in this place, but there is a body within the parliament that has gained some expertise in these matters, having conducted inquiries into previous amendment bills to the same substantive legislation. We will look with interest as the matter is referred by the other place to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and we will look with great interest at the findings of that committee. I can foreshadow here that members in this place will take very, very seriously any of the recommendations that that committee makes because we are concerned that, far from just removing red tape, the passage of this legislation may, in the haste to remove red tape, have taken out the guardrail as well. 18:48 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina With this bill, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014, the coalition government deliver on an important commitment we took to the 2013 election. We promised that we would remove the reapproval and re-registration process introduced in June 2013 by Labor. This bill delivers on that pledge. It also contributes towards the coalition's objective of reducing red tape by $1 billion every year. That is a significant amount of money—it is actually the same as the monthly interest bill on Labor's debt at the moment—and that important agenda of reducing red tape is being ably led by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Kooyong. Agricultural and veterinary medicines—that is, agvet chemicals—play an important role in ensuring the quality of Australia's food, fibre and meat production, all of which are produced in the Riverina electorate in south-west New South Wales which I proudly represent here in the federal parliament. The government does not dispute that there needs to be some level of regulation to ensure that the agvet chemicals that are used are safe and appropriately adapted to use in Australia. We have unique conditions here and of course those chemicals need to be used safely and appropriately. But that regulatory regime needs to be as efficient as possible and it needs to ensure that registration of chemicals is time and cost effective. We need to allow farmers and other agvet chemical users the opportunity to get on and do what they do well. They are the ultimate environmentalists. They are people who are very educated and very adept in doing what they do well with agricultural chemicals and pesticides. They want to be able to get on with the job of farming this country for the benefit of this nation. Rather than preventing the re-registration of certain chemicals beyond a certain date, the amendments in this bill will permit and allow active constituent approvals to remain in force so long as they are not cancelled and are subject to periodic renewal, putting the onus back on the regulator rather than backing companies into a particular corner. Registrations will also need to be renewed less frequently. That takes the onus off farmers in one sense. It provides greater certainty and reduces cost to business. Farmers do run businesses; they are very aware of every dollar they spend and very aware of every litre of water they use. They are very efficient managers of the land which they farm. As a quid pro quo, the regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, APVMA, will have extended powers to request information about chemical products and to require that further analysis be undertaken where it considers that it is necessary to protect human, animal and environmental health and safety or to protect trade. That is why I take issue a little bit with the member for Throsby, who talked about removing the guardrail. Indeed, it does not do that. He said, 'We will not take an obstructionist approach.' It is great to hear that Labor are finally going to get out of the way of farmers. It is great to hear that Labor are going to allow farmers to get on with the job of producing food and fibre and to do it in the very best way in the world. He talked about industrial health and safety, and of course they are important measures in this legislation. The Minister for Agriculture, the injured member for New England, might I say, at the moment—he had a bit of a tumble on the weekend—certainly made sure that those safeguards were in place when this particular piece of legislation was being drawn up. The bill makes amendments to the framework within which companies can request information of the regulator, to ensure that the cost of this function is more equitably shared. That is important. The Abbott-Truss government is reducing red tape for the agricultural sector and investing in the biosecurity infrastructure which will help keep Australian food, fibre and meat production safe and clean. While I talk about biosecurity measures, it was a pleasure to attend a facility—or what is not quite a facility yet; it is actually a greenfield site on Donnybrook Road, Mickleham, in Victoria. It is in the Labor member for McEwen's seat. It was a pleasure to be there on Thursday, 1 May this year with my colleague Barnaby Joyce, the Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of the Nationals, to mark the start of work on this important project. The member for McEwen was also there, as well as his state colleague Liz Beattie and the deputy mayor of the local council, Adem Atmaca, for the sod-turning for this important post-entry quarantine facility which will be built at a cost of $379.9 million. During my speech I remarked on the vision that Labor showed in identifying this site. While Labor picked out this site for this important post-entry quarantine station, we are going to get on with the job of paying for it. We are going to get on with the job of constructing it and making sure it is built, hopefully, on time and within budget, because that is what coalition governments do and do so well. The project, as the minister said at the sod-turning exercise, will play a vital role in the nation's biosecurity into the future. Biosecurity is of critical importance—we all know that; certainly in my electorate, where they grow just about everything animal and vegetable—for this nation and its exports. Given the importance of safeguarding our nation's quarantine measures, as this legislation does—safeguarding agricultural pesticide and veterinary chemical measures—it will not surprise anyone that the site at Mickleham was the first I visited, in my role as parliamentary secretary, along with John Owens and Tooey Elliott from the Department of Finance and Colin Grant from the Department of Agriculture among others. I am delighted that work is now underway. Many people would be familiar with Finance's role in constructing the budget. But in managing the Commonwealth's domestic non-Defence property portfolio, the department also does an exceedingly good job in managing major Commonwealth construction projects of which the post-entry quarantine facility is one. A key part of any new construction project is the initial planning and design phase. The right location and the right design are essential, and facilities such as that at Mickleham are going to deliver value for money for the Commonwealth—and we all know the importance of delivering value for public money and taxpayers' dollars. We did not see much of that in the six years of the Labor government, but we are certainly seeing it now as we get on with the job of fixing the mess we inherited. To this end, we are getting on with the job of building this important facility which is going to comprise a site totalling 144 hectares, with construction to take place in an area which is separated from current residential use but not too far away from the international airport at Melbourne. These were key criteria in selecting its location. I did point out that the site was selected by the previous government, and they showed foresight in that. Development of this site by the Commonwealth is consistent with the precinct's zoning for industrial and commercial developments. Eventually the facility will have industrial and commercial neighbours, with residential areas further along Donnybrook Road. As is often the case with large construction projects, the new quarantine facility will be delivered over two construction stages. Stage 1 will be completed in late 2015 and will provide facilities for plants, bees, cats, dogs and horses as well as the administration building and other essential infrastructure. Stage 2 will be completed in late 2018—so it is a long-range project, but one very important to agriculture—and will provide facilities for ruminants such as alpacas, additional cat and dog facilities and an avian facility. The avian facility will cater for both live bird and fertile egg imports. It is important that we get on with the job, as a nation, of building these sorts of facilities, just as it is important to get on with the job of ensuring, with this particular bill, that the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has the necessary powers to undertake the sort of work that they are doing—ensuring that our farmers have safeguards and safety measures in place but are able to get on with the job of doing what they do best. Speaking of doing what they do best, the coalition gave farmers and people with an interest in agriculture the opportunity to talk about agriculture with the recent white paper round table discussions. One took place in Griffith on 8 April—the agricultural competitiveness white paper public consultation—and it was well attended. People took the opportunity to deliver personal representations on behalf of their community. They came from the citrus industry, the viticulture industry and all sorts of industries from throughout the Riverina, dairy included. They turned up at this hearing and gave good evidence. Many people also made written submissions to the white paper process. We want to get on with the job, as the coalition, of getting out of the road of farmers, in one sense, and letting them get on with the job they do so well. That is why, when Senator Simon Birmingham took charge of the water portfolio, in his role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, he followed up on Tony Abbott's promise to cap buybacks at 1,500 gigalitres—which means only 249 gigalitres of water remains to be recovered. I know the member for Kingsford Smith, who is just leaving the chamber, gave a speech about water in the Murray-Darling Basin just recently. I am not quite sure how many irrigation farmers the member for Kingsford Smith actually represents in his electorate but his electorate, like that of the member for Parramatta opposite, does rely on food. Much of that food is grown in the Riverina electorate; all of that food, I would argue, should be grown in regional areas of Australia. A lot of it is, unfortunately, imported—but we certainly export more than we import as far as food goes. I commend, to that end, the trade minister for getting on with the job of preferential trade agreements with Korea and Japan and certainly working towards getting a preferential trade agreement happening with China as we speak. The agricultural competitiveness white paper is about forming Australia's long-term agricultural policies and consulting with growers, producers and other key stakeholders to see what can be improved. One thing we do very well—and it is one thing that Labor certainly did not do well—is talk to people and see what they want out of any legislation. Whether it is the pesticides and chemicals bill before the House, for the Murray-Darling Basin or whatever, we get on with the job of consulting the public. These reforms have been informed by extensive stakeholder consultation. Chemical industry groups, environmental organisations, primary producer associations and Commonwealth, state and territory agencies were all involved in discussions about this bill. That is important. That is one thing we did not see a lot of from Labor. It was knee-jerk reaction after knee-jerk reaction. Take the live cattle fiasco. We saw a program on Four Corners on the ABC one night and—bang—days later the live cattle trade was stopped. That had such a dreadful effect not just on northern Australia but on a stock crate maker in Wagga Wagga, for example. It pushed the price of the cattle market at Wagga down because they thought that because the cattle were not going to be exported to Indonesia they would come south. The member for Parramatta might find that slightly amusing, but it is the truth. The policy agenda driven by GetUp!, the Greens and social media had a real effect on regional Australia. Regional Australia does provide a lot of the wealth. It certainly provides the food that people in city electorates enjoy so much. Submissions were sought on the bill before the House between 18 December 2013 and 7 March 2014. There was an exposure draft of the legislation and an associated consultation paper—Proposed agricultural and veterinary chemicals legislation amendments: consultation paper. There were 42 submissions received and considered. Teleconferences and face-to-face meetings with interested stakeholders occurred over January and February 2014. The bill was revised to address some of the issues raised during the consultation. That is something we never saw under Labor. They never changed anything. It was just policy on the run and policy by knee-jerk reaction that was put through this House with indecent haste without any regard whatsoever for the people it would affect. Certainly when it came to regional Australia there was never any regard. Shame on Labor for that. Certainly this bill is worth supporting and I commend it to the House. 19:04 Mr WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to support the Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. This bill delivers on a coalition election commitment to remove the reapproval of active constituents and re-registration of chemical products stipulated in the 2013 amendment act as part of this government's program to affect $1 billion of red tape and green tape reductions. By extending the renewal of registrations from annually to up to seven years it will similarly reduce the administrative burden on the regulator. This 2014 amendment bill also further enhances the powers of the federal regulatory body—the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, APVMA—to ensure that all chemicals and drugs used in agriculture are safe to both animals and humans, with minimal adverse effects on the environment. My electorate of O'Connor is vast and encompasses a variety of agricultural interests, so I stand here today representing the pastoralists of the Goldfields; the grain growers of the Wheatbelt; the sheep and cattle farmers of WA's Great Southern; the grape growers of the acclaimed Mount Barker, Frankland and Pemberton wine regions; the dairy farmers of Walpole and Northcliffe; and the horticulturalists and truffle farmers surrounding Manjimup, the food bowl of Western Australia. Each and every one of these farmers has a right to maximise their productivity unimpeded by restricted access to necessary chemistries and veterinary medicines and at a price competitive with their overseas counterparts. Each and every one of them gets out of bed every morning not only to provide for their families but to contribute to feeding and clothing our country and to contribute to Australia's GDP through the export of wine, food and fibre. Each and every one of these farmers also recognises the importance of the use, but not abuse, of these herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, antibiotics and vaccines. Our farmers are progressive, educated and cognisant of the risks of resistance when chemistries and medicines are misused. Our farmers are interested in sustainable outcomes, such that the next generation will be able to build on the legacy of this one. And I should know—I am one of those farmers. My farm has been in the family for 150 years and I intend for my children and their children to have the same opportunities as I had. As a broadacre wheat and sheep farmer, I have seen the development of safe, affordable and effective chemicals revolutionise farming within my lifetime, with massive production, animal welfare and environmental benefits. When I began my farming career after completing university in 1988 the only weed control option available was multiple tilling of the soil. This involved countless hours of turning the soil, burning copious quantities of diesel fuel and breaking down the soil structure, leaving our most valuable asset susceptible to both wind and water erosion. In the late 1980s the advent of the chemical glyphosate, developed by Monsanto and marketed under the trade name Roundup, changed the crop establishment process irrevocably. Safe for use by the operator and safe for the environment, this broad-spectrum herbicide allowed farmers to dispense with countless tillage operations and sow their crops in a one-pass operation, which became known as minimum tillage. This system has evolved over the years into the no-till method, which involves minimal soil disturbance and, where possible, the retention of stubble. I digress at this point to mention that this no-till system was substantially developed by farmers from my electorate, notably Mr Ray Harrington, Darkan farmer and West Arthur Shire President, who was recognised in this year's Australia Day honours list with an OAM for his contribution to agriculture and in particular for pioneering the development of no-till farming. This one-pass crop establishment method has seen production increases driven not just by annual yield increases, with results in the Great Southern rising from two tonnes per hectare in the 1980s to better than four tonnes per hectare in 2013, but also by the ability to continuously crop paddocks that previously would have been devastated by the loss of soil structure and exposure to both wind and water erosion. This major change to our cropping systems has led to an exponential increase in the use of other selective herbicides, such as trifluralin, diuron, metolachlor, atrazine, and insecticides like chlorpyrifos and cypermethrin. All of these chemicals were developed more than 30 years ago and are therefore all long off patent and yet remain critical for the viability of today's broadacre farmer. A stark example of the cost savings to growers that occur when chemicals come off patent is glyphosate, which, when sold under patent by Monsanto in the late 1980s, retailed at the equivalent of $39 per litre in real terms, versus approximately $4.50 today. There is a very real role for these older chemistries, even in the face of today's chemical and technological advances. And although farming is what I know best, it is probably pertinent to point out that glyphosate is still used widely in our parks and on our road verges to control a broad spectrum of weeds and prickles. Similar products are also used for managing invasive species and noxious weeds in our conservation areas and national parks. Notably the National Resource Management Ministerial Council of 2006 estimated that the economic impact of weeds alone on the Australian economy is in excess of $4 billion each year, with an environmental impact of a similar magnitude. Regarding the livestock enterprises across my electorate, it is vitally important to retain access to reasonably priced off-patent veterinary chemicals not only for food and fibre production but also animal welfare outcomes. The control of external parasites such as lice or internal parasites such as worms is critical for the well-being of production animals, and as resistance develops to some of the newer formulations often the older chemistry comes back into play. Conversely with antibiosis, access to a larger suite of affordable antibiotics allows for judicious use of the most appropriate antibiotic and avoidance of the overuse of one product and possible resistance problems. On the subject of animal welfare outcomes, flystrike, a well-known scourge to both sheep and grazier, has benefited from the insect growth regulator cyromazine, a product that breaks the life-cycle of the fly, thus protecting against flystrike for up to two months. For around 20c per head for two months protection, cyromazine is not only cheap but also safe for the animal, the handler and the environment. This particular product has saved untold numbers of my flock from the slow and grisly death that used to be associated with flystrike. Insect growth regulators are also safe for use environmentally in water sources to control mosquitoes, which spread Ross River virus, dengue fever and malaria between humans. Insect growth regulators are also pivotal for protecting the built environment from termites, which brings me to the question: do these products really require the regular review that annual reapprovals, annual renewals and regular re-registration of the 2013 amendment act legislation would compel? The reality is that these should be merely administrative processes as there are already existing mechanisms within the regulatory body, the APVMA, to trigger a technical investigation of a product or constituent if indicated in any way. This is verified by the Productivity Commission and the Australian National Audit Office finding that the existing APVMA Chemical Review Programalready effectively identifies and prioritises existing chemicals requiring review. The main criticism raised in recent submissions by stakeholders to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is the extended time frame for completion of some of the APVMA chemical review processes. Surely this will only be abbreviated with the removal of any excessive administrative workload on the APVMA? The current APVMA chemical review system accords with international best practice as dictated by the OECD's recommendations of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance. There is little scope that legislating re-regulation and reapproval will improve upon this system. In the EU, they have identified that their regulators have been overwhelmed with the excessive administrative burden this type of legislation has imposed. In addition, no cost-benefit analysis or any other evidence has been presented to suggest that this reform would deliver any net benefit. In short the 2013 amendment act without the additional 2014 amendments is likely to result in several things. These include increased costs for the APVMA to administer re-registration and reapprovals, estimated to be an additional $2 million in 2015-16. There will be diminished access to innovative new agricultural products for use by Australian farmers due to excessive administrative demands on the APVMA distracting them from their real purpose. There will be potential stifling of innovation while registrants support existing registrations rather than create newer, safer and softer agricultural products. There will be increased costs of an essential farm input with flow-on effects throughout the supply chain. For example, CropLife Australia, representing the plant science industry, reveal that in 2011 direct costs to registrants was over $6.75 million. As registrants pass the costs down through the chemical supply chain to wholesalers and retailers, until it reaches the primary producers who are already making marginal returns, there will be a reduction in availability of cheap and effective products as the financial burden of the reapprovals and re-registration process makes ongoing production and supply unviable. There will be resistance issues as the suite of chemicals available becomes less comprehensive and products are not used in sensible rotation. And there will be distractions from the important job of the APVMA in ensuring human and animal health and safety as well as positive environmental outcomes. Recently the Senate referred the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 for inquiry and report. Of the 22 submissions received, the overwhelming majority were supportive of removing reapproval and re-registration. Two submissions, one from the WWF Australia and the National Toxics Network and the other from Choice, raised concerns that without annual reapprovals and regular re-registration older chemicals that were grandfathered into the National Registration Scheme for Agrivet Chemicals at its inception in 1996 would remain registered ad infinitum. They say that these chemicals have 'never been assessed against today's regulatory and scientific standards'. I am reliably informed that in fact these grandfathered chemicals were reviewed against the then current science and were found compliant throughout the period before the inception of the national registration scheme. And since the inception of the national registration scheme, chemicals registered before 1996 have always had the capacity to have a chemical review triggered by any newly discovered data regarding toxicity, metabolism, chemistry, environmental fate and environmental chemistry of their registered active constituents. I believe that it is also a legal requirement for any new data and information on the constituents to be disclosed by the registrants upon discovery. There are other triggers of chemical reviews, including: information from any third party; the actions of an overseas regulator in response to that product or constituent; and feedback from the end-use consumer, be that a pet owner, farmer or veterinarian, through a national pharmacovigilance system called the Adverse Experience Reporting Program. My point, therefore, is that retaining the 2013 amendment act regarding cyclical reapproval and re-registration will not provide any new information on these products and constituents that is not already made available under the existing chemical review arrangements. I note from my review of the Senate submissions that WWF-National Toxics Network and Choice were the only submissions to really have any opposition to the coalition's proposed changes to the 2013 amendment act. However, they do 'fully support giving powers to the APVMA to gather information about products supplied in the marketplace.' This 2014 amendment bill actually rewrites provisions to allow the APVMA more power to collect information from suppliers to ensure supplied products and their constituents are the same as those initially registered, and enables the APVMA to initiate testing processes for safety, efficacy, impurities et cetera on any suspicions of an imported or manufactured product by way of written demand. The APVMA retains the power to recall, remove from sale, suspend or cancel the registration of any chemical product or active constituent that fails to meet any of its criteria on the safety and wellbeing of animals, humans or the environment. With respect to the 2014 amendments bill allowing for simple variations to approvals and registrations, the desire is to further streamline the administrative process by allowing for simple changes to a product, such as a change to the colour or flavour of a formulation, the pack size or minor labelling to be a mere notification process rather than requiring an application, subsequent fee and possibly a repeat technical assessment of the already registered product. I know that, as a farmer, I buy certain products in the largest pack size for economies of scale, yet many are only available in the one pack size. For example, for worming sheep I might buy a 20-litre multidose pack of oral Ivermectin, but a suburban veterinarian may only require small volumes of this drug to occasionally worm a guinea pig, budgerigar or pet lamb. Yet this product is only available in the one size. There should be the capacity for smaller pack sizes of an identical product to be made available without incurring the substantial costs and administrative efforts of a full application process to provide a minor variation of an already approved and registered product. There are currently 11,700 registered agvet chemicals in Australia, comprising one or more of 2,230 approved constituents. This may sound like a lot, but it is probably worth noting that Australia only represents four per cent of the global market. We need to remain an attractive place for companies to invest, bringing their chemicals and animal health products to market and to Australian farmers like me. We also have to remember that our farmers are competing in a global market. The Black Sea region is one of our main competitors for grains, closer to our markets with lower transport costs into key markets in Europe and the Middle East. South America's beef, wool and grain has significant advantages using the latest technology, including genetic modification, producing at much lower costs with less regulation. Developing markets such as the dairy industry in China and the beef feedlot industry in Indonesia and Vietnam, have cheaper labour amongst other savings whilst reaping the benefit of Australian genetic input by importing our bloodstock. To lose access to the full suite of chemistries and medications, or to have excessive financial penalties from overregulation, will see us fall behind in the global market. In conclusion, I reiterate my full support for the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. 19:18 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I am certainly pleased to follow on from the member for O'Connor, who, without a doubt, knows a lot more about these things relating to farming, given he is a fine farmer himself. But I am going to do my best nonetheless. I am certainly pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today. In my electorate of Durack we know how vital the agricultural sector is and the effect that additional regulatory burdens can have on farmers who are already doing it tough due to Mother Nature's ongoing challenges. The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 is an important piece of legislation in the Abbott-led government's overall strategy to cut $1 billion in red and green tape each year to improve productivity, investment and employment opportunities for all Australians. And 26 March marked an historic occasion with the Abbott government holding the first ever red tape repeal day, which effectively removed over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation, saving $700 million in compliance costs. This bill further delivers on this government's election commitment to removing the reapproval and re-registration scheme and introduce other much-needed efficiency measures with the aim of providing additional savings for Australia's primary producers. The bill amends three acts within the agriculture portfolio in relation to agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines, or agvet chemicals. These chemicals are registered with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, also known as APVMA, with each of these amendments principally proposing changes to the agvet code. Unless you work in the agricultural sector you may not have heard of agvet chemicals. These are extremely important for the agricultural sector, as they protect crops and animals from pests and diseases, and are fundamental in improving productivity for farmers and ensuring the quality and safety of Australia's food production. It is therefore critical that the point is made that, although the Abbott government has committed to cutting red tape, this government, and in particular the Minister for Agriculture, is and will continue to be mindful of only removing unnecessary regulatory measures and not those that we need to maintain these important food safety standards. This bill principally focuses on three key aspects of the agvet code, with each amendment aimed at improving Australia's regulatory system and reducing inefficiency at the authority. The first amendment to this legislation focuses on removing the reapproval and re-registration processes for chemical products. Under the new legislation, registered stakeholders will no longer be forced to waste valuable time re-registering for approval, with their registration instead remaining active subject to periodic renewal. Red tape is being further reduced by changing the requirement for registration renewal to occur annually to allow a longer time frame, which will be set out in the regulations. This could be up to seven years. This will significantly reduce the burden of unnecessary paperwork which costs the agricultural industry financially when paying for unnecessary regulatory reapprovals and re-registrations and in time due to the processing of onerous amounts of paperwork. The second amendment is a measure to ensure that the authority, as the regulatory body for agvet chemicals, has the necessary power to effectively evaluate these chemicals. This is particularly important when addressing concerns in relation to chemical product quality which, if wrongly supplied, could have a significant impact on the health and safety of humans, animals and the environment—I do not think there would be any argument there. This bill, therefore, includes amendments that improve the ability of the authority to require a person who supplies an agvet chemical product in Australia to provide information such as the chemical analysis of the product they are supplying. This will ensure that the authority is able to crosscheck that products then supplied to the market are the same as those being evaluated and registered. This is a key amendment that will improve community confidence that all chemical products are being effectively evaluated and risks to health and safety are being managed. It will also improve the regulator's ability to scrutinise chemicals available in the market rather than processing thousands of unnecessary pieces of paper each year. The last amendment to this bill relates to the authority's current obligation to provide information to companies that are responsible for a chemical product about its registrations which are provided under the Freedom of Information Act. This is currently producing significant time and financial burdens on the authority, with payments for information sought under the Freedom of Information Act not covering the cost of providing the information. The bill therefore amends this requirement so that requests for documents will instead be supplied by the authority for a fee. This provision will, however, not allow the release of confidential information unless the recipient was entitled to the information being sought. These amendments will not only save the agvet chemical industry $1.3 million in time and fees annually, but will also provide surety that access to chemicals with a history of safe and effective use will not be compromised by an unnecessary bureaucratic process. Although this legislation is not a funding measure for the agriculture sector, any move to reduce regulatory burdens on the sector will have a flow-on effect to our farmers. Amendments such as these will in particular help to encourage the development of new chemistry by reducing the industry's regulatory burden. This is an important long-term measure that will ultimately have a flow-on effect at the farm gate with improvements to production. The implementation of measures such as these is imperative for Australia's own food needs, and for our future as a key market exporter. With the global population expected to reach nine billion by 2050, it is vital that the Australian government works with the agriculture sector now to cut red and green tape, implement new legislation to benefit the industry overall and our farmers directly, and to amend current legislation that reduces Australia's ability to create sustainable industries. This is particularly important for my electorate of Durack, with the electorate contributing approximately $3.5 billion to Australia's overall agriculture and aquaculture production. In Durack, agriculture production can be found in each of its key regions. This includes: approximately $1 billion in the Wheatbelt through its agriculture and fishing industries; the Pilbara contributes approximately $13.6 million to total agriculture production through its agriculture, forestry and fishing industries; some $171.1 million is contributed by the Gascoyne in horticulture, pastoral and fishing; $2 billion in the Mid West, in agriculture, fishing and aquaculture; and $266 million in the Kimberley in agriculture, aquaculture and fishing. When looking at Western Australia's agriculture industry, a key development has, and continues to be, the Ord River development scheme, which is in Durack's Kimberley region, with the potential to cross into the Northern Territory. Although the Ord River scheme has been criticised as a white elephant, it remains a key agriculture project in my electorate, which, I believe, needs to be cultivated and developed to its full potential through a collaborative effort by the Commonwealth government, Western Australian government and Northern Territory government. Although, as I said, it is considered to be a white elephant, these days my eastern states colleagues all say to me they wish they had an Ord River development scheme. The Ord River scheme has a long history, with the possibility of damming the Ord River for irrigating tropical agriculture first discussed in the mid-1930s. However, it was not until 1957 under then Prime Minister Menzies that its development began. The first stage covered the construction of the Kununurra diversion dam to form Lake Kununurra, along with the irrigation infrastructure and associated works, the township of Kununurra, and was completed in 1965. Stage 2 of the project was passed in 1967 and involved the construction of the dam which formed Lake Argyle, which was opened in 1972, and irrigation works required for 40,000 hectares of land in WA. However, at the present time only 14,000 hectares are being irrigated from the Ord. Stage 1 and 2 are now commonly referred to as stage 1, with stage 2 being the future expansion of the irrigation area. To date, the Commonwealth government has contributed $32 million to what is now stage 1, and has committed $195 million to deliver social and common-use infrastructure in the East Kimberley region as part of the Ord-East Kimberley Expansion Project. This ongoing development of the Ord has recently been a key focus of the Northern Australian Joint Select Committee's inquiry into the development of northern Australia, which I am a member of. The committee's recent tour of the Kimberley included a visit to the Ord in Kununurra. This was a very important part of the committee's overall inquiry, as the Ord and learnings from the Ord have the potential to play a key role in this government's overall aim to develop the north and, ultimately, Australia's agriculture sector as a food bowl for Asian investment. I look forward to Kimberley Agricultural Investment progressing to develop stage 2 of the Ord River scheme as quickly as possible. KAI will invest approximately $700 million, which will have a positive impact not only on the economy of Kununurra but also on the Kimberley more generally. I am certainly doing my bit to ensure federal government environmental approval is obtained as swiftly as possible. The Ord River scheme currently contributes $101 million to the Kimberley's total agriculture production, which is predominantly from sandalwood and which contributed $63 million to production in 2008-09. There is, however, a range of other irrigated farm activity already taking place at the Ord including chia, mangoes and melons. Research into the Ord River scheme has already identified significant development potential, while a recent assessment by CSIRO of water and agriculture potential for the northern Australian beef industry, also has found there is sufficient groundwater to sustain almost twice the area of land currently irrigated in northern Australia, of which the Durack electorate encompasses approximately two-thirds. The agriculture competitiveness white paper will also play a vital role in determining how Australia plans to move forward and harness this key sector, and increase our production potential for domestic use and international export viability and investment. It will particularly focus on matters that influence Australian agriculture, such as improving farm gate returns and competitiveness through the value chain, and reducing inefficient regulation, which amendments to this agvet bill are already working to achieve. Despite our best efforts, Mother Nature will, however, continue to pose significant challenges to the productivity of farm businesses across Australia. That is why this government announced a $280 million drought assistance package in February, which offers concessional loans to drought affected farm businesses for debt restructuring, operating expenses, drought recovery and drought preparedness activities. A $50 million concessional loans package was also announced in January, which is aimed at boosting productivity and helping Western Australian farm businesses grow. It is clear that this government is working to create a sustainable Australia. We have implemented key inquiries into our development potential, not just in agriculture, through the agricultural competitiveness white paper and northern Australia inquiries, but also in other key areas, such as child care and early childhood learning and the harmful use of alcohol in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Separate to these inquiries, this government is already delivering on key election commitments, including infrastructure projects for the 21st century, which are already being implemented across Australia, including in my electorate of Durack, with $482 million dedicated to fund much-needed upgrades to the Great Northern Highway and North West Coastal Highway. These upgrades will include realignment work; road widening; the provision of additional overtaking lanes and intersection upgrades for the Great Northern Highway; and a package of works, including upgrades to bridges, strengthening pavements and widening the North West Coastal Highway. This is just one of the many policies that this government has implemented to improve Australia and make it a better place to live and support these key economic arteries. We are a government who work for the people that make up this great nation, and we do that by implementing measures that will benefit them now and long into the future. We have to work now to create a sustainable nation and sustainable industries to ensure that we as a nation continue to grow and are in a position to benefit from the vast export opportunities that will be available to Australia if we develop strategically and create an environment where our businesses and industries are able to flourish, especially our agricultural sector. I commend this bill to the House. 19:32 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak in favour of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-Approval and Re-Registration) Bill 2014. This bill is critical for agriculture in Australia. There are 11,700 medicines that are used in agriculture to control pests and disease. These chemicals and medicines protect crops and animals, allowing them to grow to their full potential. It also facilitates health in our pets and our gardens—and indirectly, and sometimes directly, us, because some of these chemicals and veterinary products run parallel in the medical industry. Could you imagine the loss to our food and crop production if the regulatory burden in the current legislation suffocated the use of these chemicals which have already been registered and analysed to the nth degree and declared to be safe? It would be devastating. CropLife estimates that 68 per cent of the crop production in this country depends on these approved chemicals to control the pests that could ravage a crop of wheat or maize, chickpeas—you name it. If we do not have the ability to control pests and disease, our broadacre cropping could be devastated, yields could drop exponentially. That is a possibility; re-registration every year could mean that some of these chemicals would have to go through the whole process again. In the beef and dairy industry, control of parasites would be very difficult, because most of the parasite control is with pour-on chemicals and drenches which will all go through this registration process. We had an election commitment. We committed to the Australian public that we would reduce red tape—and, if there was ever a case of red tape, it is the current registration. By these sensible amendments, we will prevent the automatic expiration of active constituent approvals and remove the need to continually reapprove and re-register these active constituents on an annual basis, to a much more reasonable seven years. Chemical product quality is still protected with these amendments. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority can request analysis to ensure the chemicals in these products are exactly what they say they are. It still controls the packaging, the advertising and the labelling and ensures that it is all accurate. These amendments allow variations to be done at the discretion of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. It allows product registration details and information that is held with the authority to be provided to those that have the appropriate access to the intellectual property, and allows the owners of the intellectual property to know the details of the status of their registration. There is a cost-recovery mechanism involved in this, to be paid by the recipient of the information. I would like to make an analogy to the New South Wales driver's licence. They recently extended registration for safe drivers to up to 10 years. If you are a safe driver and you are not breaking the road rules or are involved in accidents and you have demonstrated that you are a good, safe driver, they will give you credit and you only have to renew your licence every 10 years. Under the current legislation, having to renew these many chemicals every time their registration renewal falls due would suffocate the industry. It would suffocate the industry that depends on them for their wellbeing. They still have to be analysed, tested and proved to be safe, but, I hasten to say, the potentially malevolent red tape is removed by these amendments. We will still have quality and still have oversight of a very effective authority, the chemicals will be safe for the recipients—namely, the crops and the animals—the humans who come into contact will get all the information that they need and our agricultural sector will continue to flourish. I would hate to think of the devastation that would occur if these products that have been around for years and years and have been through numerous analyses and registrations dropped off and had to go through the whole re-registration process, which is a costly and time-consuming procedure. Can you imagine the cost of the chemicals? The chemical companies would have to pay an awful lot of money to go through that process if they were ever to fall off the register. I would not like to be a chemical company supporting our agriculture under the current legislation. As I drive around the area of the Manning, where we have a quarter of the state's milk supply being produced, I try to imagine the implications if they were not able to drench the animals and control parasites. The milk production would drop off. It would be the same in the beef industry. You only have to look at an animal that has not been drenched and see the growth in those compared to those that have been looked after by their owners. Applications in the aquaculture industry in the Gloucester Valley do not need many chemicals but those they do need are simple and proven to be safe. Imagine if they had dropped off the register and the company could not afford to go through the extensive re-registration process. Around my electorate, we have an agricultural industry that is vibrant but it is under tremendous cost pressures. To have to go through the re-registration process for all the chemicals that foster and encourage the growth of their products would, for many, be the final straw that breaks the camel's back. I commend these amendments to the House. They are safe and they are sensible. There will still be good oversight by the authority. All the information will be accessible—assuming that there are no intellectual property issues. The registration will be clear and transparent. Simple amendments can be put through by the authority in limited circumstances. So the Australian public and the agricultural and cropping industries should be reassured that there is due oversight of this important part of their business. I commend the legislative amendments to the House. 19:41 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I am pleased to speak on any bills such as this bill, the Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014, which at their very heart are about freeing up Australians from unnecessary burdensome red tape. My colleague the member for Lyne ended his remarks by saying that these were sensible amendments and this was a common-sense approach. This bill seeks to re-establish a sensible, common-sense approach to agricultural and veterinary chemicals for use in the agricultural sector. The amendment act was passed by parliament in June 2013 and included the introduction of a scheme for reapproval of active constituents and re-registration of chemical products to commence on 1 July 2014. This bill delivers on an election commitment made by the coalition in the lead-up to the 2013 election to remove the reapproval and re-registration scheme and introduce other efficiency measures. Industry needs an efficient regulator so that it can have timely access to new technology, to reduce the cost of production and provide options to reduce resistance and to continue to provide the highest quality food both for the domestic and the international markets. As the global population is expected to reach nine billion by 2050, it is imperative that Australia, which has one of the most sustainable production systems in the world, continues to punch above its weight to address this growing food and fibre task—with respect to not only domestic production but also, importantly, the ever-increasing export of sustainable product. I am pleased that this bill will deliver on our election promise to remove that cumbersome re-registration and reapproval scheme for agvet chemicals. These reforms aim to reduce red tape for farmers and other businesses and encourage the development of new chemistry, with a range of benefits for farmers and other users, the environment and, importantly, the wider community. Australian farmers, quite rightly, take great pride in the products that they deliver to market. Protecting our image as premium quality producers is paramount for the nation. However, the re-registration scheme introduced in 2013 for effect from 1 July 2014 sought to damage that very process and, indeed, had the very real risk of damaging our clean, green image. It was really just another case of industry being tied up in red tape. This government, thankfully, understands how business works. Time spent to re-register a product that has not changed in composition, has not had any credible scientific evaluation to show a change may be needed, is just compliance, disappointingly, for compliance's sake. It does not produce a more efficient or more valuable outcome; it just wastes time and money better spent delivering new and improved products. Our government considers that, prior to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Act 2013, existing chemical review mechanisms allowed for the examination of newly discovered risks about the safety, efficacy or trade impact of a chemical. New mechanisms that duplicate the existing systems and impose additional costs on the industry are not required and are likely to result in a loss of safe chemicals because many cheap off-patent chemicals will not be economical to re-register. Reconsiderations are costly exercises that should be undertaken only when the risk of use of an unsafe product warrants the regulatory burden imposed. The APVMA already uses the activities, assessments and decisions of overseas regulators and reviews peer-reviewed science about pesticides to inform its prioritisation of chemicals for reconsideration. The approach set out in the previous act would be to add red tape without improving protection or safety provisions. In fact, this time-consuming process may in fact lead to fewer agvet chemicals being available for use due to the costs and, in very many cases, the limited use, albeit importantly. The extra costs from re-registration are despite the former finance and deregulation minister, Penny Wong, using agricultural and veterinary chemical reforms as a second key area, where the government will reduce regulatory compliance costs for businesses and improve competitiveness, as outlined in the minister's paper on the Australian government deregulation agenda. It is estimated that these amendments will save the agvet chemicals industry $1.3 million a year. That is $1.3 million in time and fees and it is $1.3 million that will ensure that farmers have access to the safe chemicals that they need to efficiently tackle the ever-growing global food task. This bill will ensure that further efficiency is added to the sector by introducing new processes for notification of the simplest changes to chemical registration and very simple application for less complex variations. If a company wants to change pack size or the company address on the label, they do not need to have a technical assessment and lodge an application that would normally cost around $1,000. Instead, for these simple changes they can just inform the APVMA and make the change. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is a return to sensible, common-sense approaches. Reducing the frequency of renewal, removing annual returns about active constituents, improving information access provisions—this amendment allows the government to extend by regulation the period of renewal for up to seven years. A renewal is simply an administrative process to extend registration and has no checks for safety and performance. The APVMA has strongly established systems to trigger a review if potential risks to safety and performance have been identified. A review may well be initiated when new research or evidence has raised concerns about use or safety of a particular chemical product. It is deregulation of this nature that is vital for the continued prosperity of Australian business. This bill and the changes it proposes to make are all about red tape reduction—and what a relief. While I am on the topic of red tape, I want to commend the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Kooyong, for their commitment to the cause of deregulation. Small businesses provide so much firepower to the regional economies in my electorate, and I identify very strongly and proudly with the family-owned businesses in Barker. Indeed, I am pleased to speak on their behalf. I cannot help but see the world through the eyes of a small business operator. Growing up I was surrounded by private enterprise, given my father's horticultural and agricultural interests in the lower south-east and my mother's longstanding retail fashion businesses. My mother's retail fashion store found itself for a very long period of time on Commercial Street in Mt Gambier. I hasten to think that if those opposite had responsibility for naming the road they might have called it Regulation Road instead. When my wife and I established our own legal practice I came to understand firsthand the pitfalls of over-regulation. The legal profession is of course one of the most over-regulated in the world and in very many respects for good reason. But I know from personal experience that red tape can become the weed which, like some insidious exotic vine, slowly but ever-effectively strangles the otherwise healthy organism that it has latched onto. We know—at least those on this side of the House do—that Labor is either unable or unwilling to undertake regular pruning of this weed so that red tape or green tape or any other sort of tape is allowed to grow out of control. The amendment act passed in June 2013 was an example of that. Alas, it is left to the coalition government to remove Labor's overgrown and out of control regulatory burden to create the breathing space business needs to create more investment and jobs. So it is our duty to prevent over-regulation. The role of regulators themselves and compliance costs faced by business and the not-for-profit sector have to be put under the microscope. It is easy to see why Labor and the Greens are not all that worried about the way the regulatory burden strangles our economy. While those on this side of the House, such as me, want to create an environment where small-business operators can grow and employ more Australians, those on the left are happy to see that growth of jobs in the public sector. They rejoice when the bureaucracy advertises for more staff. That is the only sort of growth they aspire to. I, on the other hand, when I read those ads, sigh sadly. They think it is great for this insidious vine of red tape to grow evermore, slowly strangling private enterprise, strangling small family-owned business operators and killing the chances of further growth and job creation. I know that the words of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair have been cited on this topic a few times but, quite frankly, he was spot on. He said: It seems to be part of the DNA of regulatory bodies that they acquire their own interests and begin to grow. I am pleased, if surprised, that a member of a Labour Party, albeit the British version, was able to make that observation. I wish members of the ALP were willing to open their eyes in a similar fashion. As the member for Barker, an electorate which boasts a wonderful, industrious small- and medium-sized business community and a magnificent agricultural industry across its breadth, I feel absolutely obliged to stand in this place and represent the needs of those whose hard work makes our proud regional communities tick. From my ongoing conversations with the business community in Barker, I know they feel they are being dominated by a culture of compliance and enforcement that stifles productivity. It would be remiss of me if I did not also note that, while regulators have the ability to cost-recover their fees from industry, it is industry that bears the impost of regulators' risk aversion. The agricultural and veterinary chemicals industry is a sector that is highly commoditised. The reality is that the margins are incredibly small. So, if the actions of regulators increase the costs of inputs, that has a very strong and direct impact on the profitability of the farm sector. I have personal experience when it comes to this. My father, as I said, was an agriculturalist. I remember being about eight and being told by my father that we needed to pass an inspection for the export of a quantity of onions. At the time, he was growing some 4,000 tonnes of onions, which was a significant amount for the early eighties. Despite all his efforts on the day, we failed the inspection and, as a result, we were required to repack in the order of 1,000 tonnes of onions. It was Easter, and as a religious family it was a cause for great embarrassment that we had to call in every favour we had to pack these onions over Easter. Of course, that is not a time for work but, rather, for religious reflection I recall vividly, although I was only eight or so, that at the conclusion of that work my father bent over towards me—it is an indelible image—and said, 'That's it.' I said to him, 'That's what?' He said, 'That's it; I'm never growing another onion again,' bearing in mind that we were growing some 4,000 tonnes. It was probably a good decision because the onion industry has had some tough times since 1983. We transitioned into other, less labour-intensive industries but still agricultural—mixed cattle, sheep and those things. But I often wonder what became of the 20 or so people that he employed. This was a decision he made, bored by the unnecessary red tape in a burgeoning export industry—a sad state of affairs. In any event, I commend this bill to the House. It is a return to common sense, addressing the ever-growing burden of red tape in this country. 19:56 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay I rise to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. Lindsay is a region steeped in the history of agriculture. Our region is bookended by the five Macquarie towns and John Macarthur's sheep, and home to many pioneer farmers just like Sir John Jamison. Today the Lindsay electorate is home to poultry barns and hobby farms, turf farms and thoroughbred studs, cattle and orchards. Our fertile soils on the banks of the Nepean have long been a wonderful food bowl. Just last month, I had the pleasure of visiting Sylvan Australia and Regal Mushrooms, both in Londonderry, in the northern part of the Lindsay electorate. These two wonderful organisations produce approximately 20 per cent of Australia's mushroom supply, and their facilities are incredibly impressive. As such, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the commitments made by this government to the agricultural sector across Australia. In the 2014-15 federal budget, the Abbott government confirmed a raft of measures to support this important sector, including $104 million for a competitive grants program to deliver cutting-edge technology and applied research with an emphasis on making the results accessible to farmers. There is $20 million over four years for a stronger biodiversity and quarantine system that will enable early response to import and export related biosecurity issues, strengthen systems and capabilities to contain biosecurity incursions and focus on improvements to the import risk analysis process. There is $15 million over four years to support small exporters with export costs to help them remain competitive and profitable in the international marketplace. There is $9 million for fisheries projects, including support for OceanWatch, and more support for coordinated representation of recreational fishers and for undertaking invasive marine pest reviews. Finally, there is $8 million over four years to improve access and registration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals, which brings us to the legislation today. Australia currently has around 11,700 separate agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines, known as agvet chemicals. These are registered with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Moving away from the scientific complexities of the industry, the chemicals accessed by farming and veterinary industries serve a number of extremely important roles, which is why the streamlining of this industry and reducing red tape are important Agvet chemicals do the following: firstly, they protect crops and animals from pests and diseases and so help improve productivity and competitiveness of Australia's rural industries; secondly, they ensure the quality and safety of food production while protecting human and animal health and environment; thirdly, they are an essential tool in managing weeds, vital to keep our pets healthy and a necessary part of our indoor and outdoor lifestyle; and, finally, the agvet chemicals industry is a vital quality food and fibre production. Clearly, this is an industry which indirectly affects every Australian family. These amendments build on previous measures to improve efficiency, effectiveness and safety and they deliver on the coalition election commitment to remove the reapproval and re-registration scheme and introduce further efficiencies with regard to the regulation of agvet chemicals. Further, these reforms build on the coalition's deregulation agenda and aims to reduce red tape for farmers and encourage the development of new chemistry with a range of benefits for all users as well as the environment and the broader community. To date, a hallmark of the Abbott government has been its decisive action to get out of the way of business and let them get on with the job. These amendments build on this in the following ways. They introduce new processes for chemical registration specifically for less complex variations. If a company wants to change pack size or the company address on the label, they will not have to have a technical assessment and lodge an application that would normally cost around $1,000. I will just pause there for a moment. As someone who comes to this place as a former marketer, I did a project with the Yates business and happened to see firsthand that when you are bringing new products to market in different pack sizes or with other changes, this will actually be a huge efficiency that is really going to help the market and the industry and so many other companies that produce agricultural chemicals. For simple changes, they can just inform the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority of the change. Secondly, this amendment allows the government to extend by regulation the period of renewal for up to seven years. The renewal is simply an administrative process to extend the registration and has no checks for safety and performance. It is worth noting that the authority already has a strong established system to trigger review if potential risks to safety and performance have been identified. A review may be initiated when new research or evidence has raised concerns about the safe use of a particular chemical or product. It will rewrite provisions which allow the authority to collect information from suppliers of chemicals to make sure products being supplied are the same as those the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority have registered. Finally, it will fix the food problem for the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand Act to allow the authority to amend the maximum residue limits standard. Without the change, companies will be able to register products or seek permits to use products that producers may not be able to supply—sorry, it is great having the flu in this place— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Don't share it! Ms SCOTT 165476 I am trying not to—to reduce the product of maximum residue that has not been updated. These measures have the potential to increase efficiencies, remove red tape and the burden on industry. They are a good start towards easing the burden imposed on the Australian economy and agricultural sector by reducing red tape and green tape on business. These measures simply makes sense. The government recognises that industry needs an efficient regulator so that it can have timely access to new technology to reduce the cost of production and provide options to reduce resistance and to continue to provide the highest quality food both domestically and to international markets. As the global population is expected to reach nine billion by 2050, it is imperative that Australia, as one of the most sustainable production systems in world, is able to punch above its weight in contributing to the global food and fibre task both in terms of domestic production and in exporting sustainable technology for adoption. This will lead to simple reforms to our system of chemical registration and has been supported by key industry groups such as New South Wales farmers and AgForce Queensland as well as the National Farmers Federation. In a letter to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, Matt Linnegar, CEO of National Farmers Federation wrote: Australian farmers need a system of chemical registration that facilitates the introduction of new chemicals onto the Australian market in a timely and cost efficient manner. Australian farmers compete in international markets and it is important that they have access to the tools that allow them to produce safe, fresh produce in a cost-effective manner. He continued: The assessment of the registration process should be a transparent, efficient and effective process to reduce the cost burden on farmers to assess agvet chemicals. It should also shorten registration and reconsideration response and time frames. The National Farmers Federation commends the government on their commitment to this process and would support passage of the agriculture and veterinary chemicals legislation through the Parliament. It is worth noting that the National Farmers Federation were vocal opponents of the previous government's plan to implement a mandatory re-registration process, duplicating chemical review processes and delivering an unnecessarily regulatory burden on the agriculture sector. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the National Farmers Federation has welcomed the Abbott government's commitment to remove this unnecessary process as well as to reduce the red tape and handbrake currently on the sector. This amendment has also been welcomed by Virbac Australia, a specialist organisation that employs more than 260 people from Western Sydney and particularly in my electorate of Lindsay, where its manufacturing facility is located. In 2012 alone, Virbac sales turnover was more than $100 million. Virbac Australia is a specialist animal health company, with its core business in sheep and cattle products, veterinary pharmaceuticals and vaccines and a wide range of pet care products for dogs and cats, plus a broad range of products for horses and other livestock. I have spoken with Stephen Neutze, the regulatory affairs manager at Virbac Australia, this week, and he has welcomed the Abbott government's plan to increase the efficiency of the industry. He said: 'The passing of this bill will result in improvements to efficiency of the registration process, and this will benefit companies such as Virbac. It employs those people who use Virbac's registered veterinary products.' Benefits to Virbac as a local business and employer include that the proposal to streamline changes to registered products will add flexibility to the operation at Virbac's Penrith plant, plus increase its efficiency and viability. This, in turn, can create opportunities to develop new products for livestock industries and potential new employment opportunities within Virbac. Removal of the registration scheme will enable Virbac to direct more of its resources to the development of new products at Penrith, providing an opportunity for expansion of the facilities and the employment of more staff. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, the passing of the bill will have an overwhelming benefit. It is welcomed by the National Farmers Federation and also at a local level, where businesses in my electorate, like Virbac, will be able to see immediate benefits of the passing of this legislation. It should not be the role of government to strangle Australian businesses with unnecessary red and green tape and the unnecessary duplication of reporting requirements. The Abbott government takes this very seriously. This is why, for the first time, two days of parliament will be dedicated to the removal of green tape, as we saw on 26 March. This agvet chemicals legislation amendment will save the agvet chemical industry $1.3 million in fees annually by removing duplicated and unnecessary red tape. Further, the industry has calculated that by removing the reapproval and re-registration scheme it will save up to $9 million annually in red tape and associated costs. Overall, the bill will increase efficiency in the regulator and provide greater clarity to stakeholders on the intent of legislation. It will streamline processes which, quite simply, just do not make sense. I am pleased to speak in support of the measures, and once again to represent the businesses and workers within my electorate. I commend these amendments to the House. 20:09 Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 Calare I rise this evening to speak on the Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. The bill does enact an election commitment that I actually made as the shadow minister for agriculture and food security to remove re-registration. The bill also includes additional reforms to improve the efficiency of agvet chemicals regulation. This is an area in which, unfortunately, I have had a lot of involvement as the member for Calare, in the agricultural sector and as a farmer—largely on the negative front. For too long there have been issues with the regulation of chemicals in Australia, and that is not to say that the regulator—the APVMA—has always done a bad job. It is more that it has not always been given the framework to do it, and it has had interference. However, that is not to say it does not need to be far more efficient than it is—it does. It is something to think about, that 30 years ago, or less, Australia was the first country in the world where chemical countries wanted to get registered in because we had a very good name for being efficient, for getting it done and for doing it well. Today, Australia is the last place where chemical companies want to come to get registrations done. I think that is a very bad look for Australia, it is very bad for agriculture and it is very bad for chemical companies, without whom we are in huge trouble. They do not always see us as a place where they want to line up early in the piece. As a former shadow minister, I, along with my coalition colleagues, voted to block amendments proposed by the former Labor government in 2013 that introduced the reapproval and re-registration requirements. We did not support it then, and we are now working to have it removed. Labor's re-registration requirement actually did not achieve what they stated when they set out on their ill-fated deregulation agenda. The former Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Senator Penny Wong, said that agriculture and veterinary chemicals were a key area of reform to reduce regulatory compliance costs for businesses and improve competitiveness. This was almost humorous when you see that introducing the requirement for chemicals to be re-registered actually added red tape and costs and did not remove anything. And it took away any impetus for companies to want to take away some chemicals that are not used in other parts of the world. In fact, it was a smokescreen for the Labor government to deliver an election promise made to the Greens which, in effect, and as the Greens normally do, effectively crippled some parts of agriculture and affected everybody. You could go as far as saying that it was completely anti-farming. Labor's promise was made as far away from the farming community as was possible, and was completely about doing a deal with the Greens by making it cost prohibitive to register chemicals and more costly to conduct agriculture generally. It was certainly not made with farmers and veterinary professionals in mind, particularly when many of their electorates simply have no connection with what it is that feeds people and what it is to produce the best food in the world. The re-registration system did not introduce any new triggers, and I think that is the thing that was so obvious in what they really wanted to do. Not one new trigger was introduced. In other words, the current triggers as they existed then were perfectly sufficient to safeguard the use of chemicals in Australia, be they veterinary or chemicals for the control of weeds or whatever. The re-registration system just made the APVMA run a very costly recheck of existing triggers, which of course added costs for those people who use the chemicals, being the farmers and the vets. Ultimately, those costs have to be passed on, which again made us less competitive with imports because they do not have anything like the same constrictions on them. We are very preventative country—we take enormous trouble, one could almost say unnecessarily so at times, and this was the greatest example of taking an unnecessary step. To add further insult to injury, there was no cost-benefit analysis undertaken, perhaps because the former government knew it was going to increase red tape and costs, not decrease them, which most certainly would have gone against what Senator Wong said they were doing it for. Our bill seeks to remove this costly and unnecessary re-registration requirement. It also includes additional reforms to improve the efficiency of agvet chemicals regulation. As I mentioned, the current system is not efficient. The many industry groups and individuals who took the time to comment on this bill, and to me previously, have attested to that. Obviously getting rid of the reregulation procedure goes a long way to making the whole thing a bit more sane, but there is more than that. APVMA themselves have to become more efficient. I think that getting lazy is one of the things that is involved here. When something is totally cost recovery, that takes the pressure off bureaucracy to get its act into efficient mode. I think there is no doubt that APVMA have probably woken up that they are one of the bodies that have to do that. Currently they are not meeting their obligations to finalise all applications within the statutory time frame. That is partly because of the new regulations the previous government put on them, which increase the cost for both them and the applicants and impacts on users' access to pesticides and veterinary medicines. A major flaw in the argument that the re-registration system was for health and safety is that the recheck of the triggers under the registration process will actually reduce resources available to the APVMA, reducing their ability to process the reviews of high-risk chemicals in a timely manner. This is happening. The other major flaw in the argument is the fact that no new triggers were introduced because the current ones do the job and they did the job before the previous government altered the legislation. I am not saying with regard to efficiency that it is all the APVMA's fault—they are merely adhering to an agenda that has been set for them—however, they do have to pick their act up as well. I have met quite a few of the staff and I am sure they want to do a good job—it is very obvious that they do. Removing the re-registration requirement is one way of ensuring that they can. Internationally, our registration process is already struggling to compete. That is one of the key reasons the industry and the coalition support reforms to make it more efficient. I have already said that years ago we were the first place where companies wanted to come and test their products because our process was good, our word was accepted and once a product was registered in Australia it was like an 'open sesame' in those days to go into other countries; now we are the last place. That has to be changed, and this is the first step to getting that changed. I can quote a couple of examples. One is a sheep drench that Pfizer developed in Australia for Australian conditions which I think I am right in saying, though I cannot be exact, has been registered for use in New Zealand for three years, if not longer. To the best of my knowledge it is still not registered in this country. Another product is a tea-tree sheep dip that is based on tea-tree oil. A tea-tree grower had come up with an innovative way to use natural tea-tree oil—I actually went and saw this—as the basis for a sheep drench. However, it was going to cost about $3 million to generate data on things such as toxicity tests, and with very limited data protection for such a product there was no way that the company could get the return on investment in a small market like ours. We have to accept that we are small market, even though we are big exporters. Our agriculture needs an efficient regulator so there is timely and affordable access to new technology to reduce the cost of production and keep us up there with our competitors around the world. It is not enough just to say we have got the best product, therefore we can always sell it. Life is not that simple. It is also important that we have access to a range of new technologies to improve options to reduce resistance, which is an enormous concern in modern agriculture and would become more so with limited chemicals on the market. We all know the opportunities that exist for Australia with the Asian boom and the global population demand for quality and safe products. If Australia is to truly capitalise on these opportunities we need to have an efficient chemical regulator that is world first, as we used to have, not lagging behind our competitors because it is wrapped up in unnecessary red tape and burdensome requirements. All re-registration achieves is to limit the market, squeezing out the smaller chemicals and chemical companies that cannot afford the costly registration process. At the end, the buck lands with the consumers, who bear the extra costs for re-registration—or the cheap imports, which are the other possibility. We committed to getting rid of $1 billion worth of unnecessary red tape a year, and there could be no greater example than some of the things that agriculture puts up with You have the former government willing to do a deal with the Greens who simply do not want us to use any products at all—in fact I am not quite sure if the Greens want people on this planet, let alone something for them to eat. I cannot believe that a previous government, which was supposed to be here for the good of everybody, would do a deal with the Greens which was definitely designed to make life harder for agriculture. It made the best product in the world less available to our own people, let alone to the rest of the world—which has always looked upon us, and certainly still does, as an example of how good a product can be. I have always said our greatest selling point in Australia is that we have a product as good as or better than anyone else's in the world when it comes to agriculture. It is our clean, green image but its quality still has to compete with others who do not have the same pressures on them that we do. It really is up to Labor and the Greens to get behind our agricultural sector and give them the support that they did not when they introduced this re-registration requirement in 2013. I hope we see a time, not too far away, when once again we are the first country in the world that chemical companies come to to get their product registered and have a trial. 20:23 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest The bill before the House tonight, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-Approval And Re-Registration) Bill 2014, will reduce red tape and remove the requirement for the re-registration of agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines by removing end dates for approvals and last renewal dates for registrations, so that approvals will no longer end after a particular period and registrations may be renewed perpetually. The bill also removes redundant provisions that allow applications to reapprove and re-register active constituents and chemical products. In doing so, the government is keeping another of its key 2013 election commitments and reducing Labor's red tape burden. The bill also: introduces reforms that    reduce red tape by providing for less frequent registration renewals; improves the APVMA's ability to secure information about the safety of chemicals supplied in the market; introduces further simple reforms to agvet chemicals regulation to reduce red tape and improve efficiency, two key issues; obliges the APVMA to provide access to information about approvals and registrations in its files to persons eligible to receive it; and addresses some of the minor implementation issues identified in existing reform legislation. Farming is often a high-cost, low-return enterprise and this has become considerably worse in recent years and decades. Gone are the days when a couple of bad years in a row could simply be absorbed by the particular business. Today the cost of farm operations means that most farmers are significantly impacted by difficult years and high costs. To give an example so that the members who are here might better understand: in the late 1970s a farmer might sell his cull cow at market for perhaps $1 a kilogram, live weight. At the same time a 200 litre drum of fuel, which was mostly known as the old 44 gallon drum, could be purchased for less than $40. Today the same farmer might still get $1 a kilogram live weight for his cull cow; however, that same drum of fuel now costs him or her over $200. A similar disparity exists for equipment, fertilisers and pesticides. It also exists in the rising price of power for the dairy industry—which is exponentially higher than it was, nearly doubling in the last decade alone. The price farmers take for their output is not related to the cost it takes to produce it. This has made farming an often poor return on the investment required. I have repeatedly raised in this House the commercial returns on investment or lack thereof. It is a tough world and in this farming environment it is essential that government minimises, where it can, any additional costs it imposes on the farming sector. We saw Labor do that before. This bill is a step in the right direction. Australia currently has around 11,700 separate agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines registered with the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Each of these products contains one or more of only 782 active constituents. These chemicals protect crops and animals from pests and diseases and so help improve the productivity and competitiveness of Australia's rural industries. They also help to ensure the quality and safety of food. Australia's gross value of farm production is worth an estimated $47.9 billion a year, with the export value of farm commodities around $38 billion. It is especially important in the cropping industry which is central to agriculture in Western Australia. The crop protection industry body CropLife Australia estimates in a recent report that $17.6 billion of Australian agricultural output is attributable to the use of crop protection products; that is 68 per cent of the total value of crop production. The importance of agvet chemicals in the cropping sector cannot be overstated. With the continual emergence of more resistance to existing chemicals the industry must rely on two key avenues: the development of new chemicals, especially those with different bases of action to which there is no initial resistance; and, more importantly, the use of strategic chemical rotation to ensure resistance is managed and delayed as long as possible. Chemical resistance can be divided into two areas. Firstly, exposure over time is almost certain to create resistance in target species. This is because biological organisms are by their very nature adaptive. The need to survive and reproduce is paramount in all species and nature has a way of getting around most problems—or chemicals—eventually. The power of nature in this area is not to be underestimated. Thus resistance is related to the number of exposures: the more often a species is exposed to the chemical the more likely resistance is to develop. There is, however, a second wave of resistance. Many chemical programs have attempted to reduce the number of exposures to chemicals and compensate by using a reduced number of higher concentration exposures. Indeed, this is the principle behind the most common genetically modified plant breeds, which are bred to tolerate higher levels of pesticide. This allows higher levels of pesticide to be used on crops less frequently. However, the second wave of resistance follows. Target species develop resistance more slowly; however, that resistance is to higher and higher chemical concentrations. This also has a significant impact over time, developing highly resistant weed species. We have a major problem with weeds and feral pests in this country. To manage this resistance, chemical manufacturers and farmers have to be at the cutting edge of both new chemical development and chemical rotation strategies. They do not need government to get in the way, particularly the way Labor did. This is what happened with the introduction of reapproval of active constituents and re-registration of chemical products by amending the Agvet Code, the schedule to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994. Re-registration currently requires examination every seven to 15 years of active constituents and products. Without changes to the Agvet Code, re-registration will come into force on 1 July 2014. While the government has committed to remove re-registration, it will retain the existing comprehensive powers that the APVMA has that ensure newly identified risks about the safety, efficacy or trade impact of a chemical are examined. Schedule 1 of the bill amends the Agvet Code to implement the election commitment to remove re-registration by preventing the expiry of active constituent approvals and preventing the application of dates after which a registration cannot be renewed, and removing the provision for applications to be made to reapprove active constituents or re-register chemical products. It also makes additional consequential amendments to the Agvet Code, the collection act and the amendment act and reduces red tape by allowing for less frequent renewal of registrations. This is just pure common sense. In effect, the bill will prevent the expiry of active constituent approvals and prevent the application of dates after which a registration cannot be renewed. Removing re-registration, however, does remove an opportunity for the APVMA to confirm that chemical products are the same as the product evaluated and registered by the APVMA. This can be addressed in part by changes that will empower the APVMA to require a person who supplies an agvet chemical product in Australia to provide information about the product they are supplying. This will need to be in a form that provides confidence, such as an independent chemical analysis of a random sample of the chemical. Naturally, quality control must be paramount to maintain confidence in the proposed system. This is important because Australia's reputation is one of high-quality, clean agricultural products. We see this around the world. Australia is so respected for the quality of its food and fibre. This has been and continues to be our competitive advantage in the international food marketplace. I am particularly proud of this as a farmer. The people I meet all around the world talk about the safety of Australian food. As a farmer who helps produce that that makes me particularly proud, but we need to be able to produce that cost-effectively and remain competitive. That is what we in the government are all about. There is no way that Australia can afford to lose this reputation. The work of the APVMA will be even more vital once these changes are enacted. The bill before the House builds on progress that has already been made through the national registration scheme, a partnership between the Commonwealth and all the states and territories, and on elements of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Act 2013. Our gross farm production is worth an estimated $47.9 billion a year and the export value of farm commodities is around $38 billion. We often underestimate that. We often also underestimate the value of our farms and farmers to regional communities. They underpin local economies. They use the local small businesses, and the dollars circulate within the community. Agriculture keeps alive many rural and regional communities, and it is frequently overlooked. Day after day, year after year, they contribute. These people are there day in and day out. They do their job very well and they just get on with it. Although the nation may no longer ride the back of the sheep industry, agriculture is still the lifeblood of the bulk of Australia's landmass, yet many communities are struggling—not just the farmers but also those who rely on them for their livelihood. Small towns and small businesses all need a vibrant farming community. We are doing things like this to reduce red tape to make sure that farmers can remain as viable as possible. We need to get out of the way wherever we can. Red tape reduction in the agricultural sector is quite critical to ongoing profits and opportunities. We do know that this measure is supported by the various industry bodies and groups, such as the National Farmers' Federation. I cannot emphasise enough how important the agricultural sector will be in the years ahead. When we shop at our local stores we tend to take for granted having access to some of the finest quality food and fibre in the world. I have said that repeatedly in this House. When we go into our local stores and pick up some of the most fabulous fruit, vegetables and dairy products we often think they just happen, but they do not. Someone produces them. Someone is out there at all hours of the day and night. They are doing an amazing job. The measures in this bill will assist by reducing the red tape burden for people involved in this sector. As I said, one of the most critical issues for the farming sector is access to ongoing commercial returns for what they do. We as the government are committed to reducing red tape and encouraging them to be productive and competitive. That is what we as the government are committed to doing. I support the bill. 20:37 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie I rise today to speak on the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014. This bill is one key part of our commitment to cut red tape so that small business and industry can get ahead. We, the coalition, recognise that too many businesses have become entangled in unnecessary and costly regulations. The legislation before the House delivers on our election commitment to introduce further efficiencies, particularly to the regulation of agriculture and veterinary chemicals—agvet—by removing the reapproval and re-registration scheme—a duplication in that scheme. This bill is about achieving a balance in the approach to safety and regulation within the agriculture sector while ensuring that there are no excessive duplications. Agriculture is one of the most significant industry sectors in our nation, and this sector within the electorate of Macquarie plays a vital role in defining the character and the landscape of the region. We have one of the largest privately owned mushroom-growing producers in the nation. We also have a significant number of boutique apple growers and wineries, just to name some of the agriculture that is taking place in the seat of Macquarie, in both the Hawkesbury and in the Blue Mountains. Australia currently has close to 12,000 separate agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines that are registered with the Australia Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, known as the APVMA. The APVMA is the federal government statutory authority established in 1993 to centralise the registration of all agricultural and veterinary chemical products into the Australian marketplace. The APVMA estimates that Australia's primary production is worth an estimated $30 billion a year with an export value of over $25 billion. Pesticides and veterinary medicines are vital to this production; they assist with food quality control and fibre production. This important industry must have the proper safeguards without the burden of over regulation. These reforms aim to reduce red tape for farmers and other businesses and encourage the development of new chemistry with a range of benefits for farmers and other users, the environment and the community. It is about getting the balance right. The bill puts forward amendments to the previous government's amendment act. The amendment act was passed by parliament in June 2013 and included the introduction of a scheme for reapproval of active constituents and re-registration of chemical products to commence on 1 July 2014. We believe that the new mechanisms put forward in the former government's amendments were not required. They only created a duplicate of the existing system and sought to impose additional costs on industry. What is more, they would have been likely to result in a loss of safe chemicals because many cheap off-patent chemicals would not be economical to re-register. To re-register well-established products over and over when the products have not changed is an unnecessary burden on any business, especially for our farmers and producers who already operate in a sometimes tough, competitive and often volatile environment. There are a few elements crucial to this bill that I would like to emphasise to the House. The bill will introduce new processes for notification of the simplest changes to a chemical registration. It will also allow for a very simple application for less complex variations. For example, if a company wants to make a minor change to product packaging, they do not need to have a technical assessment and lodge an application that would normally cost around $1,000. Instead they can just inform the APVMA and make the change. We are further reducing red tape by allowing for less frequent renewal of registrations. It is important to highlight the reasons we are doing this: a renewal is simply an administrative process to extend the registration and has no checks for safety and performance. The regulator, APVMA, has strong, established systems already to trigger a review if potential risks to safety and performance have been identified. Therefore, frequent renewing is not necessary and nor is it helpful to those having to fill out the paperwork. The regulations will set the period for renewal, which could be up to seven years. Furthermore, the bill will enable the rewriting of provisions that allow APVMA to collect information from suppliers of chemicals to make sure products being supplied are the same as those the APVMA registered. This allows the regulator to require testing of a product to ensure its safety and efficacy. These changes will be most welcome to producers and farmers in my electorate of Macquarie. The region of the Hawkesbury includes the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment, which is one of the most productive agricultural areas of Australia. This catchment produces around l5 per cent of the state's agricultural produce, including a large proportion of Sydney's poultry; leafy green vegetables; mushrooms, which I have already mentioned; and some dairy produce. Agvet chemicals are critical to the quality of this supply chain and farmers do not need to be bogged down with excessive paperwork and administration in order to access and utilise these substances. These reforms will assist in boosting day-to-day productivity and let producers get on with the job—what they are best at doing. It is interesting to note that the agricultural industry has calculated that removing the reapproval and re-registration scheme will save it up to $9 million annually in red tape and associated costs. These reforms will also benefit manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, retailers and users of agvet chemicals and will have a positive knock-on effect for this sector. The coalition government is committed to lifting the burden on the agricultural sector; it does not want to get in the way unnecessarily. Ultimately, it is small businesses like the ones I have already mentioned in my electorate who create jobs. We have to make sure the government works for them, not the other way around. The coalition is holding to its commitment to cut $1 billion every year in red and green tape costs. Overall this will improve our nation's competitiveness, help to create more jobs and encourage innovation. I commend the bill to the House. 20:44 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon It is a pleasure to rise in the House tonight following the member for Macquarie. I commend the member for Macquarie for the excellent job she just did in explaining this important amendment bill and explaining what the government is doing for Australian farmers. This bill is fairly dry in its context but it is very important in what it sets out to do. It sets out to ease the regulatory burden on Australian farmers. It is incredibly important to my electorate and to regional and rural Australia. I will take the time for a minute just to explain the importance of agriculture in my electorate of Wannon. It produces more wool than any other region across Australia. It produces more dairy products than any other region across Australia—more mutton, more lamb. It is a region that is at the heart of Australia's agricultural production and it is why I proudly stand here today to support this bill before us. Because anything we can do which makes our farmers more efficient, more effective, more productive and, most importantly, more profitable, is not only good the electorate of Wannon but it is also good for Australia as a whole. As you know Deputy Speaker Vasta, agriculture is still one of our key exports and provides much-needed income for our nation. This bill falls into two categories. One is that it is about the government's agenda to reduce red tape—and I will get to that—but it is also about what the government is setting out to do to support our agricultural industry. As we have seen through the election commitments that we have made, this government is very serious about making sure that our agricultural sector is one of the key sectors which will drive the growth that this economy needs into the future—to produce the jobs that we needed, to produce the income that we need to make sure that the nation continues to grow, continues to generate employment and continues to be able to make this country so great. It is a pleasure that that is what this government has set out to do and it is a pleasure to commend this bill which goes a little way in helping in that regard. The government also took to the last election a real commitment to cut red tape. We have already had the first repeal day, where we saw the first instalment of us moving to cut red tape. This bill adds to that. What we have here for our farmers is a cutting of red tape which will lead to those farmers being $9 million annually better off as a result of this red tape reduction. We should not underestimate that, because little by little by little by little, if we can continue to cut the red tape obligations that we are placing on Australian business our economy will be all the better for it. That is what this bill does. I am hoping and looking forward to seeing from the Minister for Agriculture more bills like this which will cut the red tape burden for our agricultural producers, because farmers, like small businesses in many other sectors, have been pointing out that more and more they are faced with a regulatory burden which just makes it harder and harder for them to get on and do their job. This bill before us does what needs to be done in this area. Obviously we had the previous government put some legislation through. There was a lack of consultation. The implementation, sadly, was like a lot of implementation which took place in the previous government. We have had to come in and clean up the mess. That is what the amendments in this bill do. It is worth having a look at what those amendments will do. The first, as I have explained, will mean that we reduce red tape by providing for far less frequent registration renewals in this agricultural and veterinary chemicals area. By lessening the registration renewals, obviously that helps the businesses involved in this and helps them and enables them to be able to pass on savings. It will also enable the APVMA to better secure information about the safety of chemicals supplied in the market. Being able to secure that information will help the APVMA to do their job. It introduces further simple reforms to agvet chemicals regulation to reduce red tape and improve efficiency. It obliges the APVMA to provide access to information about approvals and registration in its files to persons eligible to receive it and addresses some minor implementation issues identified in existing reform legislation. That is what in the broader context the bill sets out to do. Specifically it honours the election commitment that the coalition took to the last election. It is worth noting here how the coalition has set about trying to ensure that all the commitments that it took to the last election are honoured. This is just another example of that—of our commitment to make sure everything we took to the last election we are going to implement and we are going to roll out. It is just bit by bit that we will be able to prove to the Australian people our determination to make sure that those commitments are rolled out. This is a small part of that, granted, but it is an important part, because the Australian people bit by bit will see that we are sincere and we are honest with what we are presenting to them—what we presented to them before the election and what we are rolling out now. We introduced the reapproval of active constituents and re-registration of chemical products by amending the Agvet Code, the schedule to the code act. Registration requires periodic examination every seven to 15 years of active constituents and products. Without changes to the Agvet Code, re-registration will come into force on 1 July 2014. While the government is committed to removing re-registration, it will retain the existing comprehensive powers of the APVMA and will ensure any newly identified risks about the safety, efficacy or trade impact of a chemical are examined. So rather than just mandating every seven to 15 years a regular commitment that the APVMA has to act, we are saying, 'Let us use some common sense.' If there are some reasons or some needs then, sure, the APVMA has the power to look into re-registration and to act. But why should we require the APVMA to do that just for the sake of it? Why would you do that, especially when you know the regulatory toll that that would have? We are putting forward a sensible amendment here. Once again, it is an amendment which means that $9 million in the regulatory burden on Australian farmers is eased. This bill also looks at the concerns with chemical product quality. Removing re-registration removes an opportunity for the APVMA to confirm that chemical products supplied to the market are the same as the product evaluated and registered by the APVMA. This can be addressed in part by approving the APVMA to require a person who supplies an agvet chemical product in Australia to provide information, for example, a chemical analysis, about the product they are supplying. Once again, we are seeing good common-sense legislation here and this will make a difference on the ground. We are reducing red tape in other ways such as by allowing for simpler variations to approvals and registrations. The previous section 26A in division 2A of part 2 of the Agvet Code allowed for the applications to be made for variations to certain particulars of an approval or registration. The particulars that could be varied under this section were to be set out in a legislative instrument of the APVMA. The section was intended to streamline applications for simple variations to an approval or registration. The bill amends division 2A of part 2 and inserts a new division, 2AA, to improve the effectiveness of the Agvet Code and increase efficiency in dealing with these simple variations of approvals and registrations. So once again, we are seeing some very common-sense law-making here. I could go further into the detail of that but, in very simple terms, it just means it cuts down on the regulatory burden of those administering this act and enables them to use common sense in dealing with these issues. One of the best things about this process was that the coalition took this commitment to the Australian people in the lead-up to the election. The reforms have also been informed by extensive stakeholder consultation. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, are very aware of the importance of this aspect of law-making. One of the great tragedies of the last six years was that the previous government did not seem have any idea of what proper stakeholder consultation was about. We saw some tragedies as a result of that in the way that legislation was made and implemented and, sadly, we have a royal commission looking into one such program. The government took a commitment to the last election. We then said we were going to honour that commitment. Just because we said we were going to honour that commitment did not mean that we would then just rush that through. No, we took our commitment and we then consulted widely with the sector. The sector said: 'Maybe you could make this change here or this change here. This is how you could ease the regulatory burden.' Through that proper consultation, we have been able to come up with the amendment, which will save $9 million for the Australian agriculture sector. Once again, this is very good, sensible law-making. I commend the Minister for Agriculture for the process he took in going about and putting forward these amendments. I also thank the parliamentary secretary who has been in charge of deregulation. Obviously the consultation he did on a portfolio-by-portfolio basis led to these types of issues being identified and these regulatory-easing pieces of legislation coming before us. In summing up, this is an important bill because it deals with an important sector of our economy, the agricultural sector. It is a sector which creates jobs and it is also a sector which creates income for the nation. So it is a sector that this government takes extremely seriously and is a key policy area to continue to develop. We have seen that, for instance, with the way we are opening new markets for our agriculture sector. It is also a bill which deals with easing the regulatory burden on Australian business—small business, large business, farm sector, retail sector, financial sector. You name it, we are easing the financial burden, especially the regulatory financial burden. This is what this bill does, and it does so to the extent that our farmers will have $9 million less red tape around their necks, and that is important for that sector. The bill also goes to show that this government is serious about honouring its election commitments. It took commitments to the last election and it is now going through the process of acting on them. An important part of the process of governing is to make sure that not only do you make commitments but then you legislate and you ensure that the implementation is delivered in sensible manner, in a way that people on the ground will see and feel the difference and that is what this bill does here tonight. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 4186 ADJOURNMENT Asylum Seekers 4186 21:00 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand (   There is no issue that I struggle with more as a representative in this House than the issue of asylum seekers. Parliamentarians are rarely asked to make decisions that have immediate life-or-death consequences. But, in making asylum seeker policy, we are constantly being asked to play God. Once you recognise that Australia cannot resettle all 10.4 million refugees of concern to the UNHCR today, you are left in a situation where you are forced to make life-altering decisions between equally deserving people. I feel the realities of this responsibility as a member of this chamber keenly. George Orwell wrote in Writers and Leviathan that wrestling with political dilemmas like this is often painful because, 'most of us still have a lingering belief that every choice, even every political choice, is between good and evil and that if a thing is necessary then it is also right.' Orwell famously rejected this dichotomy, going on to say: We should, I think, get rid of this belief … In politics, one can never do more than decide which of the two evils is lesser, and there are some situations from which one can only escape by acting like a devil or a lunatic. There are few contemporary issues for which this famous dictum is more apt than our response to asylum seekers. If we cannot take everyone, how do I explain to my constituents whose need was greater—their African-Australian friend who spent the first 15 years of his life in a refugee camp; or their neighbour, a recently resettled Hazara asylum seeker who arrived by boat? And how to deal with the deserving asylum seekers who we do not choose yet come anyway? There are few straightforward right answers here. As Orwell said, it leaves one feeling 'like a devil or a lunatic'. But our choices still have consequences that force us to weigh the costs as best we can. In this vein, I believe it is important that we do everything we can to discourage the arrival of asylum seekers to this country by boat. I believe this because the journey by sea from Indonesia to Australia is one of the most dangerous in the world and I believe that, if we control our resettlement intake, we can provide a greater equality of opportunity across asylum seekers in need throughout the world. I concede this approach creates different injustices; however, I believe that they are lesser than the alternative. Similarly, on balance, I believe that offshore processing and resettlement are necessary to deter asylum seekers from seeking to come to this country by boat. Determining the right approach on these issues requires a difficult moral and policy calculus upon which people of good faith can disagree. That being said, there is no room for disagreement on three aspects of asylum seeker policy. Firstly, while offshore processing is necessary to deter boat arrivals, what is absolutely not necessary is for this offshore processing to be administered in the unsafe, traumatic and dehumanising manner that is currently occurring under this government. The death of Reza Barati on Manus Island in February this year is an unambiguous moral failure and a shame on this minister and the government. We already failed this young man in our obligation to ensure his safety while he was in our care; we must not now fail him again by allowing those responsible for his death to escape accountability. Secondly, in the face of such enormous need around the world, we absolutely must agree to resettle as many legitimate refugees as possible. Unfortunately, under this government we have slashed our humanitarian intake of refugees from 20,000 people per year under the previous Labor government to only 13,750 today. This is an Abbott government cut that will undoubtedly cost lives. It represents a failure to assist 6,250 people in need every year that we have the capacity to help. Finally, we should all be able to agree to talk about asylum seekers as the human beings that they are, not in dehumanising terms like 'illegals' or, even worse, simply named as the boats on which they arrive, but as some of the most unlucky and desperate people in the world who have come to us looking for our help. We cannot help every deserving asylum seeker in need. But the least we can do is recognise them as the grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, and brothers and sisters that they are. In a policy full of difficult moral judgements and complex policy decisions, surely we can all agree that we should guarantee the safety and dignity of those in our care, that we should offer assistance to as many people as possible and that we should treat each other as human beings. Thank you. Budget 4188 21:05 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to talk about some important election commitments that we were able to deliver for the electorate of Deakin in the recent budget. After working hard firstly as a candidate and now as a member it is very satisfying to be able to say that we have delivered all of our election commitments in this budget. I have spoken at length in this chamber at other times about three really important projects for my electorate—in particular, three very important sporting clubs: Mitcham Football Club, East Ringwood Sporting Club and Norwood Sporting Club. Each of these upgrades to facilities for the various team and junior competitions that rely on them are in the process of being constructed or planned. But today I wish to focus on two other major priorities for me prior to the election: local roads and community safety. In the recently handed down budget, we were very proud in Deakin to say that two major black spots have been funded, as promised prior to the election. The first is the black spot at Bedford Road and Great Ryrie Street in Ringwood. Having attended school there growing up, I can say that it has been a problem for the local community for many years. I was proud to have Minister Briggs visit the site last week, when we were able to confirm that the $1 million previously committed to repair that black spot has been funded. It has also been great to work very closely with Maroondah City Council, who have said that the project is shovel-ready, so we look forward to work commencing in a matter of weeks. The second major black spot in the electorate is the Surrey Road and Junction Road intersection. This is an area that has seen increased traffic through to the Eastern Freeway and it has been a source of concern for local residents for many years. I was therefore proud to formally announce that the half a million dollars towards repairing that black spot has been funded as of this budget, and VicRoads is ensuring that we get the best bang for our buck. Last week I had the pleasure of Minister Keenan dropping past Deakin and announcing all of our funding commitments under the Safer Streets program. These involved various commitments of CCTV, improved lighting and the removal or the assistance in the removal of graffiti—which will basically make living in Deakin safer and more pleasant. Again, I want to thank Maroondah City Council and Whitehorse City Council, who have been exemplary partners in the planning for the delivery of those Safer Streets program projects. I will list them now. The first is $200,000 for the Ringwood precinct, in and around Ringwood Station and along the nightclub precinct. It has been a source of concern for many people over many years, and I am assured that $200,000 will go a very long way to ensuring that antisocial behaviour in that area is limited. There is also $200,000 for CCTV in Railway Avenue, Ringwood East. I want to thank the Ringwood East Traders' Association for bringing those issues to my attention—in particular, some of the antisocial behaviour that occurred in and around Ringwood East Station that was causing huge concerns for residents. It really came home to roost last year when Minister Keenan visited the electorate and spoke to some local hairdressers who often have customers late into the evening. They felt very unsafe walking to their cars, and there had been a number of circumstances that were quite unsavoury. So we are very proud to be able to improve safety for those sorts of people in Ringwood East. In the Whitehorse centre of the Deakin electorate we are delivering on two significant programs. The first is $200,000 towards additional lighting in and around Nunawading Station. Again, during the campaign, issues of safety for women, in particular, walking to and from their cars or from home to the station were concerning. We are very proud that that lighting will go part of the way towards helping with those problems. There is also $80,000 for a graffiti truck for Whitehorse City Council. (Time expired) Fraser Electorate: Budget 4189 21:10 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser I rise this evening to talk about the impact of the Abbott government's budget cuts on the electorate of Fraser. It is my sad duty to inform the House that, since the election of the Abbott government, on many occasions my constituents have found themselves deeply disappointed by broken promises that have hit their communities. The Gungahlin Jets is a local organisation that had received budgeted funding under the Building Multicultural Communities Program. The Gungahlin Jets were to receive a grant that would have helped improve security at the club house—but, unfortunately, that funding was ripped away, with the Jets being burgled in subsequent weeks. We do not know whether or not the grant, which included funds for a security door and security cameras, would have prevented the threat, but we certainly know that that funding was taken away. Senator Zed Seselja incorrectly told the people of Canberra: They promised something they didn't have the money for. They didn't allocate the money for it. He is either deliberately misleading the people of Canberra or is unable to read the 2013 budget papers, which allocated the money, and this government's MYEFO document, which ripped it away. Joe Cortese, the chairman of the Gungahlin Jets, said of Senator Seselja: Bit disappointed … We thought … The fresh senator in the ACT would take an interest. He did say to the people out here that he wanted to help the people of Gungahlin. Well I haven't even received an email or a phone call from him besides before Christmas. The Women's Legal Centre in the ACT does vital work in looking after vulnerable women in the ACT, including victims of domestic violence. A cut to the budget of the Women's Legal Centre—which is likely to have to wear some of the pain inflicted on community legal centres—would, by that centre's estimate, reduce the amount of work that the centre did by about one full-time person's workload. That means 535 advice activities and 30 cases currently supervised and managed on an annual basis. Solicitors in the Women's Legal Centre, like many other legal centres around the nation, also supervise work done by outside pro bono lawyers who volunteer their services to the centre. That work would go as well if these cuts are to take effect. Vital work at the ANU is being done on cutting-edge research. It was my pleasure recently to attend the launch of the heavy ion accelerator facility endowment with Professor Stephen Buckman, the director of the Research School of Physics and Engineering, and Mahananda Dasgupta, Keith Fifield, Alastair Muirhead, Mick Cardew-Hall and Andrew Roberts. These researchers, as with many other researchers at the Australian National University, are deeply concerned that the government's cuts to higher education will adversely impact them. As Chief Minister Katy Gallagher has noted: 'The Commonwealth has torn up the agreement made with every state and territory under national health reforms. The funding guarantee is gone, which will penalise the ACT because of our smaller scale and higher costs.' Indexation will fall and the funding 'appears not to recognise the 25 per cent of health services the ACT provides to the people of NSW', such as people who will be injured on the ski fields over this winter who will receive treatment at Canberra Hospital. As Chief Minister Gallagher notes: Unfortunately, the Commonwealth stripping funding from health won't make the costs go away. People will still arrive at the emergency department, they will still require operations, cancer treatment and renal dialysis. This decision simply shifts the burden to the states and territories. Ms Gallagher goes on to note that the abandonment of the school funding agreement will mean that it is not possible to fund schools at the previous level. The worst blow to the electorate of Fraser is the government's broken promise to cut no more than 12,000 public service jobs. The loss of 16,500 Public Service jobs will hurt the public sector and the private sector in the ACT. We have a Treasurer who, before the election, joked about the fact that the election of a Liberal government would drive down house prices in Canberra. I am all for housing affordability, but getting it via unemployment and bankruptcy is a dumb way of achieving the goal. This budget is going to hurt Canberra and hurt Canberrans, and I will fight for the people of this great city. Mallee Electorate: Karen Community 4190 21:15 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee I rise tonight to talk about something that has been true about the electorate of Mallee for a very long time. Peter Fisher, the MP from 1972 to 1993, who I am sure you will know, made the comment to me as a candidate that the people of Mallee are a very tolerant electorate. And we have continued to be a very tolerant electorate. On Thursday night last week I had the tremendous privilege of going to a dinner with the Karen people in Nhill. I have been on a bit of a journey with the Karen people. When I was President of the Victorian Farmers Federation I was involved with the Parachute for Poverty. Forty people had to raise $1,000 each and jump out of an aeroplane, with the $40,000 raised going towards buying a banana plantation on the Thai-Burma border. It was said to me many times that I would have raised quite a bit more if I had not had the parachute. Whilst the cause was good, I suspect the outcome had I not had the parachute may not have been welcome on this side. Those opposite may have seen the value in me jumping without a parachute! The Karen people have been a marvellous addition to the Nhill community. It is testament to what can happen when people go through due process and the community wraps their arms around them. There are 140,000 Karen refugees on the Thai-Burma border. Their journey came, being dispossessed people, at the end of the Second World War, and the Burmese will not let them back in. They sit in a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees administered camp. Many of those refugees have spent up to 20 years waiting. They do not have the financial resources to be able to pay a boat to try to smuggle them in; they have to sit there and wait. But when they have been able to get their UNHCR registration number they have been more than welcome to come into Australia as refugees. Nhill is an interesting name, because there was nil unemployment in Nhill. It is a little country town and we could not get workers. We had great businesses like Luv-a-Duck, and Sherwell and Campbell Silos, and we needed people. This is the case right across regional Australia. We do need people. To people who say to me that there are no jobs or that they are upset that they might have to move to find a job, can I say: move to the country and take up some of these jobs. Frankly, their quality of life will be so much more enhanced by breathing the fresh air and getting away from the smog, and they will see the value of community. Fifty of these Karen people are now working in Nhill. They are buying houses and they have been integrated and wrapped around. I had the great privilege and honour to be presented with an outfit that is only presented to the elders of the Karen. It was testament to me that when you have a community that is prepared to stand by a group of refugees and when you have refugees who are prepared to wait and go through the due process, we can actually achieve a win-win. This has been a win not only for reconciliation and not only for the culture and the greatness and beauty that they bring to the community; it has also been an economic win. We have seen people be able to fill jobs that they were having trouble filling. Those jobs have led to productivity and to growth. In the township of Nhill you cannot rent or buy a house; you have to build a house. The place is full. It is a fantastic story. This is where we need to be heading. Whilst we need a very firm and strong border security platform, we also need to complement that with a very good humanitarian process, where we take in people who have gone through the due process, put them in country communities, get them jobs and let Australians exercise one of the great things that has always been good about Australians—that is, our tolerance and inclusiveness. I think Nhill is an example that many parts of Australia can look to. Peter Fisher was right even in 1972: the electorate of Mallee is tolerant, it is compassionate and it is a great electorate to be able to represent. Balkan Peninsula Floods 4191 21:19 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Earlier this month the Balkan region in south-east Europe was hit by an unprecedented amount of rain, causing devastating floods and destruction throughout Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and parts of Croatia. Three months worth of rain fell within three days, taking at least 49 lives and destroying much of the infrastructure as well as decimating vital agricultural lands. Several major cities remain flooded and there is a continuous danger posed by landslides in the various mountain regions. More than three million people have been impacted, with hundreds of thousands of people forced to leave their homes and be evacuated to various emergency shelters. The cost of this natural disaster will be calculated in the months and possibly years ahead, but the damage is expected to exceed more than a billion dollars. Disasters of this magnitude are difficult even for the most developed economies to handle. Australia has had its fair share of natural disasters, including floods and bushfires, and we know how difficult it is for affected communities to recover. I visited Serbia last year and it was clear to me that the country was still very much in the process of rebuilding after years of struggle and conflict. The region's sad history is now interfering with current recovery efforts, with reports of dislodgement of 120,000 landmines throughout Bosnia left over from the hostilities of the 1990s. In spite of these challenges, it has been great to see a united Serbia and, in fact, a united region coming together in a most astonishing way. Volunteers are working around the clock to secure cities from overflowing rivers. Assistance for those who lost their homes arrived almost immediately from the region and across Europe and the rest of the world. Despite the hard work of the locals and assistance from abroad, there is a long way to go before things are back to normal. Unfortunately, this government's decision to cut $7.6 billion from our foreign aid budget makes it unlikely that Australia will make any contribution to less fortunate nations in times of grave difficulty, as the Balkans are currently experiencing. Many people of Balkan heritage live in my electorate of Fowler. In fact, my electorate has one of the largest Serbian communities in Australia, and I am aware that many local residents have relatives and loved ones directly affected by this disaster. I have been in contact with local community representatives who are organising relief efforts for the Balkans. Over the years, my local community has shown a great deal of compassion and generosity in assisting fellow Australians and indeed people around the world who are going through tough times. This time is no different, with many individuals making significant donations, and local churches, clubs and community organisations coming together to raise relief funds. The St George orthodox church in Cabramatta is organising containers of canned food and hygiene products to be shipped to the affected regions. I will be attending humanitarian concerts and fundraisers at the Serbian Cultural Club in Middleton Grange as well as the Bonnyrigg Sports Club. The Bonnyrigg Sports Club has long been the main meeting place for many of the Serbs across Sydney. The club, under the management of Jason Woods, is taking a lead role in providing relief for the flood victims. Many individuals in my electorate have made a significant effort to raise awareness of the floods and to raise assistance. My community is fortunate to have individuals such as Fairfield councillor Milovan Karajcic; state member for Cabramatta Nick Lalich; Dragan Milovanovic, of the Serbian diaspora; and local businesspeople like Stan Jankovic and John Pavasovic, who are making a significant contribution to the relief effort. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia during these difficult times. I am particularly saddened, as we all are, by the tragic loss of life and we send our condolences to the families left behind. Papua New Guinea 4192 21:24 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert On Sunday and Monday, 18 and 19 May in Cairns, the Australia Papua New Guinea Business Forum and Trade Expo was held. Phil Franklin, President of the Australia Papua New Guinea Business Council, who is based in Lae, and Frank Yourn, the executive director, who is based in Wynnum in Brisbane, were both heavily involved in setting up this fantastic affair. It is a trade show with dinners, get-togethers and lots of chat around the place. It was well attended, with a wide cross-section of banks and companies plying their wares, and I hope everyone had a great time. They had one aim, and that was to do business better and increase activity between our two countries. One of the keynote speakers was the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, the Hon. Peter O'Neill. He said it was great that Papua New Guinea was back on the map for Australia. He did note that it was the first time in history, probably never to be repeated, that Papua New Guinea had been visited by three different Australian prime ministers in one calendar year. It made an impact. He spoke quite passionately about the visa issue in trying to get to and from Australia. People applying for education and business visas would like to have quicker access to the country. We do throw up a fair few barriers when it comes to access for those sorts of people. Whilst the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, who also spoke at the forum, recognised their concern, it is not a governmental thing; it is not a policy thing. This is a regulatory thing, and we are working with the Papua New Guinean government to bring their processes up to scratch, the same as other countries. Papua New Guinea is coming into its 14th year of real economic growth. Whilst I was in Port Moresby recently for Anzac Day, they were burning off all the impurities in the natural gas pipeline and so there was an ethereal glow over the horizon, where the gasworks were going on. This is a massive project for PNG and it will be an economic driver into the future. Their economy is expected to grow over 15 per cent in the foreseeable future, and they have a plan to grow their economy, to build their workforce and to work their way through. At the forum, Julie Bishop spoke about our aid and the respect between our two countries. Dr Leigh BU8 Did she mention the cuts? Mr EWEN JONES 96430 We are actually increasing aid to Papua New Guinea, mate, and we are doing it better. Instead of just throwing money out the window as you drive past, we are actually targeting programs which will give defined benefits on the ground. We are partnering with the NRL and with the Seventh-day Adventist university up there to produce 500 midwives, fully trained, throughout the country. That is the sort of thing that our aid budget will do. My only problem with the foreign minister's address was that, when she was told she would have to back an NRL team—the obvious answer was the North Queensland Cowboys—she chose the PNG Hunters! The PNG Hunters were in the Intrust Super Cup up against the Mackay Cutters and the Northern Pride. She chose the PNG Hunters. So she had a fair bit of explaining to do when she hopped off the stage, I am telling you! The minister spoke of respect and duty. She spoke about getting the best bang for our buck on our aid budget. She spoke about driving our aid dollar further by partnering with people to get better things in place. I would also like to take this opportunity to plug the PNG Games in Lae this year. Lae is in the industrial heartland of Papua New Guinea. I have never been to Lae but they say it is a great place; it is a busy town. Lae is the home of the 6th Papua New Guinea Games. The theme this year is 'Bilong yumi', which is pidgin for 'it belongs to you and me': it belongs to all of us. Fourteen thousand athletes throughout the country will compete in not just rugby league—they do more stuff than just rugby league—but also football, netball, volleyball and traditional sports. The leader of the contingent at the forum was Terry Johnson from Brand Ambassadors, who is Townsville based, and Scott Prince is an official PNG Games Ambassador. Scott Prince had a fair bit of explaining to do as well! The closest capital city to Townsville is not Brisbane; it is Port Moresby. We must make sure that we take care of our northern neighbour. We must make sure that they participate in the development of northern Australia. We must make sure that they are a quality driver in that region. They are a country of over 8½ million people with an average age of 42. They are a great country and they are a great resource for all of us, and I thank them all for having me. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 21:30 NOTICES 4194 NOTICES

Monday, 26 May 2014

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Christian Porter) took the chair at 10:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 4195 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Gellibrand Electorate: Vocational Education and Training 4195 10:30 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I recently had the privilege of helping Footscray City College open their fantastic new environmental science and horticultural centre and their science technology centre. Our economy is changing. The traditional manufacturing jobs of the past are evolving into highly skilled and highly competitive roles. In my electorate in Melbourne's west, the closure of the Toyota plant in Altona and the uncertainty surrounding the future of the BAE shipyard in Williamstown have sent shockwaves through my community. Furthermore, youth unemployment in Melbourne's west is currently at 13 per cent, one of the highest rates in the state. Giving our students the right training is essential to ensuring that young people in our community are given the best possible opportunity in the workplace, and giving our nation a workforce ready to meet the challenges of the decades ahead. That is why I was so pleased to attend the opening of the Footscray City College environmental science and technology centres. These centres will kindle a love of science and technology in students, opening their minds to new career paths in the years to come. I am very proud that the previous Labor government was able to support the construction of these facilities through a grant of $2.2 million under the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program. This policy recognised not only that investment in trades was desperately needed but also that it should be directed through collaboration with industry. The previous government worked with schools and local industry to determine where the jobs of the future will be and to ensure that students were trained with the skills needed for these jobs. Along with the trades training centres, the federally funded Partnership Brokers program is helping young people in my community make a successful transition from school to further education, training and employment. The Partnership Brokers program creates partnerships between schools, local businesses and the broader community to ensure that the tailored training students receive results in real employment outcomes. The trades training centres program and the Partnership Brokers program work hand in hand to link local industry with local educational providers to ensure that both students and employers get the skills they need. Nationwide, the Partnerships Brokers program has established over 2,500 partnerships in just four years. The return on public investment is clear. Our local Partnership Brokers program estimates that the cost of running the program annually is equivalent to the annual cost of Newstart benefits for 28 unemployed Australians. Unfortunately, the Abbott government has axed both the trades training centres program and the Partnership Brokers program. The Abbott government's recent budget was an attack on what makes Australia a fair and egalitarian society. Not happy to simply introduce a 'learn, earn or starve' policy for young Australians without a job, the Abbott government has also sought to make it more difficult for young people to acquire the skills they need to find work. If the Abbott government were serious about helping people into the workforce, it would retain policies like the trades training centre program and the Partnership Brokers program and invest in the skills of our young people, instead of throwing them to the wolves. Fisher Electorate: Sunshine Coast Startup Weekend 4196 10:33 Mr BROUGH 2K6 Fisher The last few weeks have been a very exciting time on the Sunshine Coast. On 2 May we hosted the first ever Startup Weekend. This is a worldwide movement where young entrepreneurs come together to pitch their ideas. They get together with like-minded people and come up with new innovations which can create jobs and opportunities. The Sunshine Coast knows only too well we need that, because our traditional industries of construction, tourism, retail and hospitality certainly need a broader base. Everyone on the Sunshine Coast recognises that. This Startup Weekend, which was sponsored by the University of the Sunshine Coast, Regional Development Australia through the Commonwealth government and the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, was hosted at the Innovation Centre. I congratulate and thank Mark Paddenburg for his work in helping organise this. Some incredible groups came together with some innovative ideas that will actually create the jobs of the future. On top of that, last week I was fortunate enough to host Daniel Petre AO, the only Australian ever to be a Vice-President of Microsoft. These young businesspeople were able to pitch directly to a man who has had more than 400 organisations pitch to him. The invaluable insights that they gained in doing so will lead some of these to the market, creating new opportunities. I want to share with the chamber here today a couple of those. The first one is called newNRG. It is the world's first automated online lifestyle change company using a unique priority delivering model that combines evidence based science, multiple proven psychological theories, digital workbooks, online and off line support, social networking, game based record systems and 3D animated characters to drive long-term behavioural change so that we can start to address the great need in the area of movement and obesity. This is a first, and from the Sunshine Coast I congratulate the brother and sister team, Mark and Nicola McCalliog, who have put this together. They are meeting again next week in Sydney with Daniel Petre to take this idea further A young student, Georgie Murray, has come up with an app that helps you to make friends in transit. It is the sort of thing that I can just see some of the best and biggest airlines in the world taking up. This is a gem of an idea from a young person who has got enthusiasm, and what we need now is the entrepreneurs to support her with angel funding. We have a GP who started up GPnow with Moni Kami, but we will not go into his product. The final one in the brief time that I have got is Cloud DC by Gavin Keeley. This will bring together on the cloud for the first time all of the platforms which at the moment do not interact. If he is able to achieve this—and he tells us that he can—this will change the way small and medium businesses operate with the internet and the big data of the future and the way of the world, which of course is interconnectivity. This is a wonderful opportunity. The Sunshine Coast is growing, and I invite other people to participate with us in that growth. National Sorry Day 4196 10:36 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I rise to mark National Sorry Day. In so doing, I acknowledge the Ngunawal and the Ngambri peoples, the custodians of the land on which we meet. I also acknowledge the first nations peoples of the land in and around Brisbane—the Ugarapul, Yuggera, Jagera and Turrbal peoples. I pay my respects to elders past and present. National Sorry Day is an annual day of commemoration and remembrance of all those who have been impacted by the government policies of forcible removal that have resulted in the stolen generations—that is the description from the National Sorry Day Committee. This year Sorry Day will be marked locally on Brisbane's south side with the annual Sorry Day breakfast to be held on Saturday at 9 am, at the Sorry Day plaque at Orleigh Park, Hill End. Labor has long acknowledged the stolen generations. In his 1992 Redfern address, then Prime Minister Paul Keating acknowledged the removal of Indigenous children from their mothers. The Bringing them home report was tabled in our nation's parliament on 26 May 1997. The report called for 'a national "Sorry Day" to be celebrated each year to commemorate the history of forcible removals and its effects'. The then Labor leader Kim Beazley sought to move that, on behalf of the nation, the House unreservedly apologises to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians for the separation policies. But sadly, then Prime Minister John Howard refused to give the apology that was needed. Instead, he supported a motion of regret. It was a difficult time. Pauline Hanson had given her first speech to the House only a few months before, complaining about so-called reverse racism and the support given to Aboriginal people. The then Prime Minister John Howard responded weakly, saying: Well, I certainly believe in her right to say what she said. I thought some of the things she said were an accurate reflection of what people feel. The view that the right to say racist things is more important than the right not to suffer racism is coming back into fashion under the new coalition government, the Abbott government. We have seen the proposal for radical changes to hate speech laws that the current Attorney-General has defended by saying that people have the right to be a bigot. It is a sad reflection on the state of the debate but, more importantly, it is a situation where you have got a current-day Attorney-General repeating the failures of the coalitions of the past where Mr Howard failed to give a strong rebuke to Pauline Hanson for racism. I, like many of my colleagues, do not believe that the right to be a bigot is more important than the right not to suffer racism. Despite the Howard government's refusal to apologise and its willingness to look the other way when it came to Hansonism, a national movement for reparation and apology took hold in the wake of the Bringing them home report. The first Sorry Day was held on 26 May 1998—the anniversary of the tabling of the report—and it has been held annually ever since. When Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave his apology, he acknowledged the stolen generations. Budget 4197 10:39 Mr IRONS HYM Swan This budget has seen quite an incredible and unprecedented investment in a new road network in Perth to connect the airport and Kewdale freight and railway terminal in my electorate of Swan with Fremantle port. In addition to the $300 million allocated for the Gateway WA project next financial year in my electorate of Swan, the Abbott government has committed $925 million for the Perth Freight Link project, a standard freight connection between Kewdale and the Fremantle port. I was pleased to be able to help launch this initiative last Monday with the Minister for Finance, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and the member for Tangney. Works are anticipated to include a five-kilometre Roe Highway four-lane dual carriageway extension from its existing terminus at the Kwinana Freeway to Stock Road in Coolbellup and improvements to Stock Road and High Street. This productive infrastructure will make a huge difference to the economy in Western Australia. It will also help local residents, as it is estimated that it will take 65,000 vehicles off the surrounding roads every day. I note that Main Roads are considering the Beeliar Wetlands, and I certainly welcome the focus of Main Roads on ensuring that the wetlands are at the forefront of this project. There will be a 120-metre bridge over the Roe Swamp, which has conditional environmental approval. This is a project which has a very strong economic basis, with Western Australian government estimates indicating that the Roe Highway extension will deliver benefits of $5.20 for every dollar invested. It certainly is an exciting time for Perth. You would think that there would be no-one who could possibly be against such an investment in this productive infrastructure in Perth. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can see that you are thinking, as a Western Australian as well, that surely no-one could be against a fantastic result for Western Australia. But you would be wrong. While reading the local papers last week, I came across two articles: 'MacTiernan accused of road block' in the West Australian on 17 May 2014, and a letter to the editor from Labor Senator Glenn Sterle entitled 'Wrong turn on road funding' in the Canning Times on 20 May 2014. Labor Senator Sterle puts forward a bizarre argument that somehow better roads will not produce a safe wage for truck drivers and will end in tragedy. I think Senator Sterle really is clutching at straws to suggest that new roads will lead to road tragedies. I am sure there was no evidence or proof provided with his statement. But Labor's opposition to roads is worse than that. It was written in the West Australian that the former WA infrastructure minister, the now member for Perth, Alannah MacTiernan, not only opposes today but deliberately tried to sabotage the Perth freight link with her decision a decade ago, as the WA minister, to delete the Fremantle Eastern Bypass road reservation and sell surplus land for housing. She is quoted as saying that proceeding with the link was planning lunacy. Nothing ever changes with WA Labor. They are, as a former member of this House, Martin Ferguson, said last week, a national disgrace. Surf Lifesaving 4198 10:42 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I wish to outline to the Federation Chamber the unveiling of the memorial to former lifesavers which occurred on 27 April at Coogee Beach in my electorate. The fallen lifesavers memorial is a wonderful tribute to lifesavers throughout Australia who have paid the supreme sacrifice and given their lives defending our nation in all theatres of war. The memorial was unveiled by Her Excellency the Governor of New South Wales, Marie Bashir, on 27 April. Despite the inclement weather, also present were the Premier of New South Wales, many local politicians and dignitaries, the member for Wentworth and the Minister for Communications representing the Prime Minister, military personnel, veterans and lifesavers of all ages. The memorial is in the form of a wonderful bronze sculpture from renowned sculptor Alan Somerville. It conveys perfectly that bond between the tradition of and the affinity between surf lifesavers and military service of our nation. The sculpture is of two men. A lifesaver standing by the iconic belt and reel—the wonderful symbol of lifesaving in Australia—he is clasping hands with an Aussie digger about to go into battle. They are both facing the sea at the historic Coogee Beach, a part of the stretch of coastline along Sydney where the birthplace of surf-lifesaving took place. The sculpture represents community and service to our nation. When you visit many of the surf clubs throughout Australia, you will see on the walls honour rolls dedicated to those who served our nation and paid the supreme sacrifice. In World War I, lifesavers signed up in droves. They saw their military service as an extension of their community service. The toughness of the Aussie digger is conveyed perfectly in that project. The memorial was the idea of Tony Waller, a former President of Coogee Surf Life Saving Club. He was inspired by the involvement of kids in Anzac Day. After many years of work he has brought this idea to fruition, and I thank Tony for his vision and hard work. At the launch, the foundation clubs were involved and it was a wonderful celebration of surf-lifesaving, particularly with the involvement of local nippers. The project was overseen by a trust, made up of representatives of the mayor of Randwick, the RSL and military personnel. I wish to thank the members of the trust for their work in the memorial for fallen lifesavers. Cretan Association of Sydney and New South Wales 4199 10:45 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 17 May I had the pleasure of representing the Prime Minister at the Cretan Association of Sydney and NSW annual ball in Bankstown. The Cretan Association was established in 1959 and serves as an important link between Australians of Cretan background and their homeland. There was a great spirit of celebration on the night. Several groups demonstrated traditional Cretan dancing, and a traditional poem was read. One of the important purposes of the function was to commemorate the 73rd anniversary of the Battle of Crete in World War II. This battle was the first major airborne battle of the war, with thousands of German troops being parachuted onto the island. Germany sought possession of Crete because of its strategic position, with its harbours and airfields providing access to theatres of battle across Europe. Crete was defended by a force of Greek soldiers, Cretan locals and Allied troops from Britain, New Zealand and Australia. The Greek forces fought with extreme courage with weapons which were often less advanced than those of the Germans, as the writer James Maropoulakis Denney has noted: … at Alikianos the outnumbered 8th Greek Regiment successfully charged the German lines with bayonets when their ammunition had run out. The German commander wired headquarters that at Alikianos that they were confronting a force of over 4,000 Greeks, but in reality, the 8th Greek Regiment had less than 850 men. This kind of bravery was to be duplicated by Greek units throughout the island. The bravery of the Greek forces was matched by Cretan locals, many of whom had very limited weapons. The lightly armed Cretans attacked the invading Germans with weapons such as knives, rocks and field hoes. The German forces were stunned by the bravery of the locals, as the historian IM Stewart has stated: During a year of unbroken triumph they [the Germans] had known nothing but the cowed submission of their victims. This unexpected defiance by a civilian population surprised and angered them. While the German forces ultimately obtained control of Crete, they suffered very substantial losses due to the fighting of Greek, Cretan and Allied forces. Winston Churchill in his history of the war noted that 'the German losses of their highest-class fighting men removed a formidable air and parachute weapon that could not be deployed elsewhere'. Of course from 1941 to 1945, the Cretan people provided a powerful resistance movement to German occupation and sheltered many Australians. Indeed, one of them, Corporal Geoff Edwards of Western Australia, was so moved by the shelter and protection he received from the Cretan people that he named his home back in Western Australia in their honour. The Battle of Crete forged close relationships between our nations. It was a privilege to attend the Cretan association's annual ball. I commend the organisers on this important function. National Sorry Day 4200 10:48 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Today is National Sorry Day, a time for all Australians to reflect on the profound grief and trauma experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, particularly members of the stolen generations. The first National Sorry Day was held on this day in 1998, one year after the Bringing them home report was tabled in this parliament. This historic report was the result of an extensive inquiry by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission into the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. For the first time, formal recognition was given in the Australian parliament to the forcible removal policies of successive federal, state and territory governments over several decades that resulted in the stolen generations. The report also represented the first true and comprehensive documentation of firsthand testimonies of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults, who, as children, were forcibly removed from their families, communities, cultures and land, and were subjected to human rights violations that contravened several articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Bringing them home report gave voice to those who had previously been silenced and made 54 recommendations for the nation. A key recommendation was that reparation be made to Indigenous people affected by the forced removal policies. Part of that included an acknowledgement of responsibility and an apology from all Australian parliaments, police forces, churches and other non-government agencies which implemented these policies. However, this parliament will recall how the then Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard, could never embrace the notion of a national apology. On 13 February 2008, 10 years after the Bringing them home report was tabled here in the parliament, the newly elected Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, delivered the national apology that we had all been waiting for. On behalf of the nation, our Prime Minister said sorry for the pain and suffering caused by past government policies and practices, in particular to the stolen generations, who were robbed of family, language and culture. It was a momentous event in our nation's history and an important step in building trust and developing stronger relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. The national apology also came with a commitment to close the gap, with a particular focus on life expectancy, education achievement and economic opportunity. Earlier this year I spoke about the need for funding for a number of important programs to help close the gap. It is with great regret that I note that funding has, in fact, been stripped for Indigenous programs from this current budget. I urge the Prime Minister and his government to reconsider these cuts if we are genuinely going to deliver on our commitment to closing the gap. Rainsford, Mr Paul 4201 10:52 Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 Calare I wish to express my condolences to the family and friends of Paul Rainsford. Paul passed away suddenly in April, aged 43. He was a resident of the Wallerawang area all his life and, while I did not personally get to meet Paul, I received many calls to my office following Paul's passing commending him and his achievements in the local community. Paul attended the Wallerawang public and Lithgow high schools during his educative years. He commenced his boilermaking trade in 1997 at the Wallerawang Power Station. He went on to work in the local power industry for all of his career, spending considerable time at both the Mount Piper and Wallerawang power stations. I am told that Paul was an extremely talented sportsman, playing junior and senior rugby league, baseball and lawn bowls. He played locally and also represented the Wallerawang area in group rugby league, group baseball and numerous lawn bowls pennant matches. He also contributed significantly to his local community through coaching, umpiring and club committee support. As such, Paul was a highly regarded and highly respected member of the Wallerawang community. His willingness to give and his ability to bring out the best in people through mentoring and advice will be sadly missed. Paul was a dedicated family man and is survived by his wife, Kathy; his son, Jack; and his daughter, Erin. Arrangements are currently underway by members of the community to hold a fundraising event to assist the family during this difficult time. World Elder Abuse Awareness Day 4201 10:54 Ms HALL 83N Shortland Shortland is one of the oldest electorates in Australia. I am constantly being made aware of the issues that are important to those older residents within the electorate. It is very important that as a government and as a nation we ensure the safety and security of older Australians, and that we take account of the fact that older Australians need financial security and safe housing. The issue I want to raise today is that 15 June this year is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. Around the world older people are being subjected to psychological, financial and physical abuse, and on 15 June we turn our minds to that issue globally. Unfortunately there are many stereotypes and prejudicial attitudes towards older people and towards this issue. We need to re-examine how we as a society look at older people. We need to value their contributions to our society both past and present. I am sure members of this House are aware that older Australians are constantly making a contribution to our society, be it through family support or volunteerism. It is a frightening fact that around the world five per cent of the 542 million seniors have experienced some form of elder abuse. That is taking place in our society as well and it is an issue that we as members of parliament need to raise and be aware of. We need to understand that we must act in our country and work towards seeing that this elder abuse stops. Bullying and maltreatment of older people can lead to serious physical injuries and long-term psychological consequences. It is important that we get behind this day of elder abuse awareness and it is important that we as a country support and acknowledge the contribution of our older Australians and that we do not target them and marginalise them in any way but respect and honour their contributions to our country and offer them financial security and safety when they need it. Barton Highway 4202 10:57 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I would like to announce this morning another step forward in achieving the most important infrastructure project in my electorate of Hume, the staged duplication of the Barton Highway. Many visitors to the Parliament and Canberra come in along the Barton, which runs between Canberra and Yass. It is a well-known stretch of highway in southern New South Wales, often for the wrong reasons. This morning in a joint statement with my state colleague the member for Burrinjuck, Katrina Hodgkinson, I have announced the appointment of a consultant to carry out the important work of the Barton Highway corridor improvement strategy. The Brisbane based firm Cardno has won the contract after a competitive tender process. Cardno is an ASX 200 listed company which carries out the design and development of major infrastructure projects globally. The appointment of Cardno to undertake the Barton Highway strategy is a crucial next step in achieving the staged duplication of the road. The federal government has committed $8.6 million in this budget to further safety works along the Barton, including the all-important McIntosh Circuit improvements, which will be underway later in the year. Included in the budget is funding that is matched by the NSW government to undertake this improvement strategy. When we came into government I realised that no work had been done for 10 years on a staged and fully costed plan to duplicate the Barton. That is what we are working towards here: a master plan allowing us to complete a duplicated highway piece by piece, each stage fully costed. In December last year we announced the joint commitment by the Commonwealth and NSW to fund the master plan. A steering committee comprising the New South Wales, ACT and federal governments and the local council will oversee this strategy. In the short term, the steering committee is considering the potential for more safety works, including intersection upgrades, road shoulder widening and opportunities for overtaking lanes, and there is money allocated in this year's budget for those very proposals. Over the five years to 2012 there were 127 crashes on the Barton Highway. Ninety-nine people were injured and five people lost their lives on a stretch of road which is only 45 kilometres long. More people have lost their lives in accidents on the highway since then. I recognised before my preselection that the Barton Highway duplication is the most important issue for the south-western part of my electorate. I am doing everything in my capacity to make this happen. An important contribution to the master plan will come from the local community. I expect to be able to announce details soon of a public consultation process to inform the corridor improvement strategy. Community input in this process is integral to getting it right. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 4203 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Broadband 4203 11:00 Ms SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore I move: That this House: (1) notes that the recent Strategic Review of the National Broadband Network (NBN) revealed that the: (a) Government's broadband plan can be completed using a mix of technologies to save $32 billion, keep monthly bills lower and deliver the NBN to all Australians four years sooner than under Labor's plan; and (b) NBN is in a fundamentally worse position than Labor ever disclosed to Parliament or the Australian public; (2) notes with concern that the review found that: (a) if Labor's policies are left in place, Australian households could pay up to 80 per cent more for broadband each month; and (b) the cost of completing the NBN under Labor's plan has blown out to $73 billion; and (3) acknowledges that the Government is delivering on its election commitment to complete the NBN sooner, cheaper to consumers and more affordably for the Australian taxpayer. Gilmore is an exciting and wondrous place to live with contrasting scenery, contrasting lifestyles and certainly contrasting technology. One part of Gilmore, the seaside village of Kiama, has been blessed according to the previous government regarding the rollout of the NBN while other parts of Gilmore struggle to get an ADSL connection. During the past three years, the NBN was put on a technology pedestal that was not only impossible to maintain but impossible in application. Everyone, according to the policymakers of the day, deserved to have fibre to the home technology with 100 megabits per second, and people were adamant in their demands. They, of course, did not need 100 megabits per second. They were only downloading the odd movie and their favourite music; everything else was average with emails and the occasional mini YouTube download. That need is between eight and 12 megabits per second. In the beginning, the people of Kiama were delighted to be one of the pilot rollout areas. I cannot report that the enthusiasm continued throughout the project and new names for the NBN were developed: 'Not blah, blah Necessary' or the 'National Broadband Nightmare'. More recently this has improved. Originally, the cables were all supposed to be underground, but someone forgot to check the local geology. Kiama is built on basalt, so you can imagine how many engineer's drills were broken or had to be replaced because they were blunt. In fact, the entire project was put under pressure by unrealistic construction times and untrained technicians—typical, really, pushing a project for the big media grab but not making sure the best solutions were applied. The Labor government's desire to rollout the infrastructure according to their political timetable was unrealistic, badly planned and absolutely reflected a lack of business acumen. It is no wonder the project blew the budget bottom line and had thousands of homes not connected according to their schedule. Apart from the cabling change, some streets in Kiama were without water for five days, there were power losses and there were homes connected but, oops, it should have been the neighbour's place. Cable was connected to the home then the owners were told there was an additional cost to put cable throughout the house. Driveways were dug up, medical alerts were not being connected and connection appointments were not kept, triggering paperwork—in some cases, eight copies of the same material and eight rescheduled connection times. At the same time, there were complaints from other areas in Gilmore demanding immediate connection—if only they knew. Many residents in Kiama wished they were not a guinea pig site. There are so many residents who assisted in having the medical alert facility accelerated as part of the changeover. Thank you for your passion and persistence. Thank you also to the many others who have shown great fortitude and patience in what has been to date a very frustrating experience. They include Rod Cork, who told us that businesses had been caught up in the problems; Peter Snelling, whose patience is beyond belief; John Holdgate, with multiple correspondence copies; Ross and Joyce Brown, who had no water. But, most of all, thank you to Robert G and Michael T, regional managers for NBN Telstra. Some would say you are both just doing your job, but your efforts in defusing myriad issues have been amazing. When a government lacks business experience there are problem consequences. Putting unrealistic expectations on provider companies without listening to their concerns and their knowledge to improve the system, causes waste, inefficiency and customer frustration, and the list goes on. Straight after the election, we carried out a strategic review. The startling summary of findings, if we had followed Labor's plan, includes: that the cost would end up being almost $73 billion—that is, $29 billion more than the public have been told—that it would not reach the final rollout destinations until 2024; an 80 per cent increase in the cost of broadband for the average family; and $6.5 billion had been spent with only three per cent of the scheduled connections completed. The new plan is a combination of technologies. It is cost efficient, time efficient and technologically flexible to grow with advances over time. The plan includes extending the interim satellite service; $34 million has been allocated to upgrade the services for existing users, expand the service availability and establish a subsidy scheme for the cost of on-premise equipment and installation. The fixed wireless review also showed that Labor had not fully catered for the needs of regional areas like Gilmore. In the September quarter, the summary of the reviews is due. It will describe a mix of technologies for NBN as an updated 2014 to 2017 corporate plan, including a detailed rollout schedule. It is essential for everyone to know that their village has not fallen off the map, as some of our local media imply, and to know that they will not have an NBN that is somehow inferior or be ignored, as those on the opposite side will pretend. The government's NBN plan will be far more a rational and national approach to the development of broadband infrastructure where those areas with little or no internet at present will be seen as a priority. A faster and most cost-effective rollout is the action of an experienced and responsible government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the motion seconded? Ms Henderson ZN4 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:05 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I do not think this government could lie straight in bed. Two weeks ago, the government handed down a budget which included broken promises on education, on health— Ms Henderson ZN4 Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the unparliamentary language used by the member opposite. I ask that he withdraw that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Specifically? Ms Henderson ZN4 In relation to accusing the government of lying. Mr CLARE HWL I did not say that. I said that this government could not lie straight in bed. Ms Henderson ZN4 That is unparliamentary language. Mr CLARE HWL Let me make it very clear, this government has broken promises. Ms Henderson ZN4 I ask for your ruling on that, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 It was a play on words. I will let it pass. Mr CLARE HWL Thank you, Deputy Speaker. They have broken promises on education, on health, on pensions and on taxes. Then they come into the parliament and move this motion where they are proselytising, keeping their promises on the NBN. Quick news flash: they have broken promises on the NBN as well. In April last year, the Prime Minister said that, if elected, everyone would have access to 25 megabits per second by the end of 2016. That promise has been broken as well. On the last sitting day in this parliament, when everyone was distracted by the closure of Holden, Malcolm Turnbull, the Minister for Communications, came into the parliament and said that the government was breaking that promise as well. It is not the only promise they have broken on the NBN. They promised nine million households would get fibre to the node. Now only about three million households will get that. There is also this ripper. In February last year, the then opposition leader Tony Abbott said: If we don't go ahead with the NBN in its current form, that's about $50 billion less that the Commonwealth will need to borrow. That is not true either and the budget papers prove it. Last year's budget—our last budget—showed that we would allocate $30.4 billion in government equity to build the NBN. In this budget the Liberal Party shows that it will allocate $29.5 billion. It is not a $50 billion difference; it is a $1 billion difference. The real difference is what the people of Australia will get. Under Labor they would have got the real NBN, fibre to the premises, a game-changing project that would change the way we live and change the way we work. Under this government, only 25 per cent of Australia will get fibre to the premises. The rest of Australia will miss out. They will get a second-rate NBN from a third-rate government. We have to ask ourselves why this is happening. I think it is because the Liberal Party do not understand how important the NBN is. The Prime Minister says he is the infrastructure Prime Minister of Australia but he describes the NBN as, effectively, a video entertainment system. He wants to tear down this project but at the same time build a paid parental leave scheme that gives $50,000 to rich mums who do not need it. I make this point for this reason: the cost of the paid parental leave scheme over the next decade will be more than the cost of building the NBN over the next decade. Which one do you think will have a bigger impact on the Australian economy? I can tell you it is the NBN. The member for Gilmore should know better because in her electorate is the town of Kiama, one of the first places to get the NBN. The people in Kiama who are using it love it. Ms Sudmalis interjecting— Mr CLARE HWL I have. A woman named Sharon Parker, who lives in your electorate, said this: Downloading, uploading, fast, brilliant. Sending emails, instant. Downloading really big documents, we get it straight away.    …   …   … Brilliant. We don't have any dramas, none whatsoever. By her actions, the member for Gilmore is denying the rest of her electorate the same service that Sharon Parker is getting. Towns like Nowra, Gerringong and Gerroa will all miss out on what Kiama is getting. They will get the second-rate NBN. Do not worry; we will tell them about it. If they do not know about it already, we will tell them, come the next election in 2016. We will tell the people of Nowra, Gerringong and Gerroa that they are missing out on the real NBN because of this short-sighted government. We will remind them of the promises—on education, on health, on pensions, on taxes and on the NBN—that this Prime Minister has broken. They are missing out because they trusted this untrustworthy government. 11:10 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite What we have just heard from the member for Blaxland is another example of the Labor Party living in La La Land. The figures that we have just heard are absolutely rubbish— Ms Hall 83N Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I do not think that the term 'La La Land' is really respectful or worthy of being used within the parliament, and I think that the member should be asked to rephrase her language and use some more parliamentary-type language, language that is in line with what one would expect from a member of parliament. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 On this occasion I will allow it. Please continue. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I said, this is another example of the Labor Party living in La La Land. We have seen how the Labor Party has monumentally driven— Ms Hall 83N Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question for the member under standing order 66A. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Member for Corangamite, do you— Ms HENDERSON ZN4 No, I do not allow the member to intervene. As I say, this is another example of the Labor Party living in La La Land. We have seen how the Labor Party, the previous federal government, has driven our country into monumental debt and deficit. It has shown that it does not know how to run the economy, and despite the attempts by the member opposite to shut me down in this debate— Ms Hall interjecting— Ms HENDERSON ZN4 I will proudly say loud and clear—and it is unfortunate that she is trying to do it again— Ms Hall 83N Mr Deputy Speaker, I have another question I would like to ask the member under standing order 66A. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 A member can only intervene on one occasion, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 That is right. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 I return to the debate, and I remind those who are watching this and seeing the display opposite of Labor's mess. I look at page 52 of Labor's Mess 2007-2013, which is also on my website. There is no more monumental example of an infrastructure mess than the NBN. The document says: In 2007 Labor promised a National Broadband Network costing $4.7 billion and which would be completed by 2013. In 2009 they switched to an NBN costing ten times as much. …   …   … After six years of Labor government, only 3% of Australians had access to the NBN and fewer than 100,000 were using it. Labor's NBN achieved only 16% of its original rollout target for June 2013 and only 7% of its target for paying customers. What we have seen again from Labor, from the previous federal government, is an example of incompetence. This is an infrastructure project that Labor failed to deliver, and the member for Blaxland has got his figures dramatically wrong. As we know from our strategic review, we have costed this project at $78 billion. We are proudly delivering about 26 per cent of fibre to the premises for homes right around the country. Let me just remind the people of my electorate in Corangamite that, when Labor decided to roll out the NBN, one of the big differences was that it did not prioritise those who needed the NBN the most: those in rural and regional areas. Frankly, it is a disgrace that Labor completely excluded from the rollout the people in southern Geelong and in places like Highton, Belmont, Grovedale, Waurn Ponds and Marshall, where people in my electorate are absolutely desperate for internet connections. Once again we have seen Labor's absolute failure to care for country people, to regard country people as a priority. The rollout in southern Geelong is a very good example of that. I also remind the House that, apart from the massive cost blow-out, as we see in the booklet Labor's Mess, not only were the targets appalling but without policy changes, as the independent review has revealed, up to 200,000 households and businesses in regional, rural and remote areas were going to miss out entirely on a connection under Labor's NBN. This has been a monumental infrastructure disaster. We are proudly fixing Labor's mess. We are proudly rolling out the NBN quickly and efficiently and delivering fast broadband right across Australia, which is what the Labor Party, unfortunately, failed to do as it did with so many other things. 11:16 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley This motion unwittingly reveals one of the few qualities of the Abbott government. I know that after their first chaotic budget not too many people are talking up the qualities of the government. Watching them sell what has been described as a stinking carcass of a budget—high praise from their side—it is painfully obvious that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are struggling in talking up themselves and their own qualities. Considering this, I thought I would lend them a hand, using the motion of the member for Gilmore. You see, this motion champions one of the greatest hidden attributes of the government, which is its sense of irony. Look hard and you will find that that quality is on display in everything that the government does. That quality has been on show from their first swearing-in right through to their first budget. If members are having trouble identifying it, check out the responsibilities they have set up for their ministers. A Prime Minister who shaped a ministry with the lowest level of female representation in living memory is the minister for women. They have an industry minister who oversees the closure of industries; a health minister whose biggest job right now is to discourage the sick from seeing a doctor; a social services minister who is cutting the incomes of young employed people, making sure they have less money for things such as food and rent but making sure they have a couple of hundred dollars for marriage counselling; and an infrastructure minister who has distanced himself from any infrastructure project that does not involve building a road—he should just rebadge himself the 'Minister for Tar'; he is helped by the member for Mayo, the 'Assistant Minister for Tar'. But the greatest, the finest, blaring example of irony, is the Minister for Communications, who is tasked with the slow death of one of the biggest communications projects in the country, the NBN, and he is ably supported by backbenchers who run interference, creating confusion and dismay about a project that will actually benefit their own electorates. This motion was moved by a regional member of parliament, the member for Gilmore, backed up by three regional members of parliament arguing against improving the quality of infrastructure in their own patch. What are we going to see next, a conservative government argue for lifting the taxes on the well off? No, they have done that one, too! We have here the government turning the NBN into what has been described as a CBN—a copper broadband network. They are not doing anything inventive. All they are doing is reverting to type—the type that has dogged them since the last time they were in government, when they had 20 failed broadband plans—tinkering with copper when fibre is what will be required to get the job done and done right. Instead of 93 per cent of homes being connected with fibre the coalition will connect only 26 per cent this way. That is what these regional members are applauding today. Instead of ensuring complete coverage by satellite and wireless in those hard to reach areas, these members are chanting for an $80 million mobile phone tower program where data costs will be higher and speeds will be slower. They are presiding over a plan described by veteran analysts, such as Paul Budde, as a dog's breakfast. It is so bad that the promises they made at the election have already been dropped—for example, that of 25 megabits per second by 2016. So what is the member for Gilmore talking about when she talks about the NBN? Her motion is not about the network itself; she focused on reviews. Since the government have come to office they have not been rolling out fibre, they have been rolling out red carpet to consultants. I have seen the minister out and about wearing a fluoro vest. I do not know why. He is not building a network; he is building a Brandisesque library of consultant reviews and reports. If they are not rolling around in glee making snow angels out of the invoices that the consultants have sent them, they are working hard to suppress different views on the NBN. I have been surprised to see, for instance, reports that the ABC are withholding reports about the NBN because they do not want to upset their new masters, and they are failing to report on the National Broadband Network. Have no doubt about it: people want fibre to the premises. They do not want the coalition's CBN; they want the NBN. I know this from my own area, where I have often raised the concerns of local residents in Woodcroft and Doonside. Fortunately, and to their credit, in April the government reversed a terrible decision they made in December where they dropped these suburbs from the rollout. But, while one half will get the NBN, the other half will not. There are patches of these suburbs that are bizarrely omitted. The shadow minister for communications attended a forum I held earlier this month where residents expressed a clear view they wanted the job done properly. In words that I think signal a firm view across modern Australia, he was told: 'This is Australia, not a Third World country. There are other countries worse than us that have better broadband service. If I have a right to vote, I should have a right to better broadband.' That is the expectation of modern Australia, not what these people are delivering. (Time expired) 11:21 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I commend the member for Gilmore for this motion. She knows, as I do, that regional Australia needs better broadband sooner. Regional Australia needs to catch up to the major metropolitan centres and have access to the type of broadband service that allows businesses to grow and compete and individuals to enjoy an equivalent level of support. Labor in government failed to prioritise regional communities in the original NBN plan, and many regional areas with no broadband service were left behind and had to watch as metropolitan areas were upgraded. Labor underestimated the number of Australians in regional and remote areas who want the NBN by a factor of two to three. This is easily demonstrated by their bungling of the NBN interim satellite service, which provides temporary internet access for premises in metropolitan fringe, regional and remote areas with no other way of getting broadband. In December 2013 the ISS reached its capacity of 48,000 customers and registrations were closed. In July 2013 Labor told 250,000 households and businesses, many with other broadband options, that they were eligible for the ISS. Tens of thousands were left demanding the service but unable to obtain it. Labor spent $351 million on the ISS—$7,300 per user—yet it delivers dial-up service to many users. By comparison, the coalition has made unserviced and underserviced regions a priority. The government moved in April 2014 to fix Labor's mistakes and $34 million was committed to improving the ISS to improve service quality for existing users, allow new connections and establish a subsidy scheme for the cost of on-premises equipment and installation. The government is committed to rolling out the National Broadband Network as quickly as possible, at less cost to taxpayers and more affordably for consumers. In nine months the number of premises covered has increased 65 per cent, from 348,000 to 573,000. The rollout is proceeding using a multi-technology mix that matches the right technology to the right location and leverages existing infrastructure. The NBN Co strategic review found that, if Labor's NBN proceeded, it would cost $72.6 billion—a mere $29 billion more than the public were told. It would lift broadband costs by up to 80 per cent and take until 2024. The government's approach will save taxpayers $32 billion, get the NBN finished four years sooner and enable nine out of 10 Australians in the fixed line footprint to have access to download speeds of 50 megabits per second or more by 2019. In my own electorate of Forrest, NBN Co has recently announced new services to be provided by fibre and fixed wireless technologies in Brunswick, Stratham and Boyanup. This will add to the 44,000 homes and businesses in Western Australia with access to the NBN. I was especially glad to see the media release from NBN Co announcing the additional services in the electorate. That release states: For many homes, farms and businesses in rural and regional Western Australia the rollout of the NBN will provide access to internet speeds and bandwidth that many in the big cities take for granted. That is how it is in rural and regional Australia. We saw the overbuild. We heard repeatedly about the overbuild in Labor's NBN. Instead of prioritising rural and regional, they overbuilt in areas where there were sometimes two services already available. It has taken the installation of a coalition government to get that recognition, and I am very glad that we have it. NBN Co will release an updated 2014-17 corporate plan in the September quarter of 2014. This will include detailed information about the rollout schedule, and I look forward to seeing it spell out how to deliver better broadband in Forrest. 11:25 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway Looking at the motion that is before us, on every single point the mover has stumbled, perhaps unwittingly, into the realms of what I call Turnbullistan. It is almost as if this motion was drafted in the minister's office. It talks about the strategic review of the NBN. The minister—because this really does look like it was drafted in the minister's office—likes to claim that the strategic review tells him that Labor's plan for its NBN would cost $72.6 billion, increase prices for consumers and not be complete until 2024. On every single one of these claims made by the minister, he is wrong. He is deliberately misleading the community. I am very concerned, also, that he is unwittingly misleading the member for Gilmore. On the issue of cost, it is absolutely false to claim that the strategic review identified that completing the NBN under Labor's plan would cost $72.6 billion, because the revised outlook in the strategic review did not represent the cost of building a fibre-to-the-premises network, which was Labor's NBN. It was a hypothetical exercise based on a series of forward projections and assumed that management of the project would not achieve any efficiencies. Furthermore, the minister continually and incorrectly refers to the three different concepts of cost used in describing the NBN, these being the sum total of all capital expenditure; the peak funding requirement, which is the sum of capital expenditure plus operating losses until the project becomes cash flow positive; and levered peak funding requirement, which assumes that only a portion of the peak funding is provided by government equity contributions, and that the portion raised by private debt funding includes costs incurred in raising the debt. The minister's own strategic review reveals two things about the cost: firstly, that the only real difference in the cost to the Commonwealth between Labor's plan and the government's plan is less than $1 billion in equity financing; and, secondly, that choosing levered peak funding inflates the result by including costs of debt. Therefore, it could be just as reasonably claimed that the strategic review showed that the fibre-to-the-premises NBN could be built for the capital expenditure included in the corporate plan.5 I would also note that this was the mob running around prior to the election saying the cost of the NBN was $90 billion. Even the hapless member for Moncrieff used that figure in the House a few weeks ago. Just to make it clear how out of date he is, on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network on 19 April last year—a hearing of the parliament—I asked: … I want to go back to your briefing at the start, just to be crystal clear. The NBN costs $37.4 billion. What veracity should then be given to assertions that the NBN cost could in fact be around $90 billion? He said: I can only repeat that we are confident of the $37.4 billion figure. So I asked him: Do you know how that $90 billion figure was derived? That is the figure that those opposite were running around talking about. The answer was no. But perhaps the most galling point in this motion regards election commitments. Before this government became expert on breaking election commitments, they were breaking promises on the NBN. We all remember the laughable press conference with the then opposition leader and the member for Wentworth and Sonny Bill Williams. During that press conference the now Prime Minister said: Under the coalition by 2016 ... there will be minimum download speeds of 25 megabits ... we will deliver a minimum of 25 megabits ... by the end of our first term. That promise was broken in December last year. It barely lasted a couple of months. I want to draw the attention of the member for Gilmore to the success story6 that is Labor's NBN in her electorate. The Illawarra Mercury recently featured a story on one of the member for Gilmore's constituents, Ms Maree Shepherd, who is enjoying the benefits of Labor's high-speed fibre broadband network, which has allowed her to work from home. The story quotes Maree: "When I studied Australian history, we studied the tyranny of distance, about the problems for Australia being so far away," Ms Shepherd said. "The internet and the NBN in particular for me down here in Kiama, that tyranny of distance is gone now. The world is right here in my living room because I've got a good connection." These are the lived experiences of people enjoying the transformational and enabling powers of ICT investment. I believe the member for Gilmore should be there listening to their needs rather than putting through these extraordinarily ill-thought out motions. I would like to point out that, while we talk about the regions and how concerned these people are about them, what are they doing about equivalent wholesale pricing? Gone. Selling out on equivalent wholesale pricing. We were supposed to end the disparity between metro and bush prices, and they have completely sold out the regions on each one of those. (Time expired) 11:30 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume There can be few issues of more importance to the people of Hume than telecommunications. We have over 18,000 people a day travelling into Sydney and Canberra for work, and each one of them wants a connection so that they can work outside of office hours when they need to. The Hume corridor between Sydney and Canberra is the tree change capital of Australia with huge numbers of people moving out of those cities for a wonderful rural lifestyle. I also have the electorate of small businesses. I have lots of edges and not many centres, and that means small business proliferates right across the electorate and those small businesses need telecommunications for the effectiveness of their business. I understand rural Australia. The member for Greenway does not because she does not come from that area. We understand how disastrous Labor's policies were on the NBN for rural Australia. There is a long list of rivals for Labor's worst, most disastrous program, but the rural NBN has to be at the top of the list. Let us touch on just one aspect of their failure to deliver for rural Australia and that is the interim satellite service. The NBN interim satellite service attempts to provide temporary internet access for premises in metropolitan fringe and particularly more remote areas where there is no other means of getting the internet. In July 2013 Labor told 250,000 households and businesses, many with other broadband options, that they were eligible for the interim satellite solution. But in December 2013, less than six months later, the interim satellite solution reached its capacity of 48,000 customers, having promised it to 250,000—another of Labor's extravagant claims that prove to be a huge problem for the people of rural Australia. What is worse is they spent $351 million on the interim satellite solution—that is $7,300 per user—and it delivered little more than dial-up broadband speeds. What an extraordinary waste. In my electorate of Hume this was real people with real businesses. The Dysons moved into my electorate, hoping to run an education business using broadband. They were promised they would be able to achieve 20 megabits per second or thereabouts of download speeds to run their business. They quickly found that that was impossible and had to move their business into town where they could get higher speeds. This government moved in April 2014 to fix Labor's mistakes and $34 million was committed to improving the interim satellite service and to improve broadband quality. That is just one of the problems. I could stand here and talk for 30 minutes or however long you like about the rest of them. What is important is to talk about where we are going with all of this. We understand that better telecommunications is the key to unlocking growth in regional Australia. In March I announced the first towers in my electorate for fixed wireless services near Cowra and Young. Six new towers are under construction in Cowra and Young—in fact most of them are now up—and they will provide fast broadband access to thousands of residents as part of our reprioritisation to rural Australia. The towers are at Koorawatha, the Olympic Highway between Cowra and Koorawatha, Gooloogong, the Lachlan Valley Way between Gooloogong and Cowra, south of Canowindra and between Derbys Falls and Wyangala—all areas with huge problems with the internet. Recently, I was at the Koorawatha show and saw one of these sparkling new towers that have been a long time coming. There is still a wait for these areas to be connected. It will take up to 12 months, but the residents can at last see hope. Around the town of Goulburn we will also be seeing a rapid rollout in the coming 12 months of fixed wireless internet towers. So this government is moving on the problems in rural Australia. We understand the need for reprioritisation, but we also understand the need to allow the private sector to play a role. In the village of Harden the community has taken this problem into its own hands and is rolling out its own fixed wireless solution. Around Palerang, just on the edge of Canberra, Wireless4U has been rolling out fixed wireless towers for some time. Our NBN is not seeking to push out private sector providers. In fact, we are seeking to encourage them. That is a critical part of our strategy. I commend this motion to the House. 11:35 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I would like to start my contribution to today's debate on the National Broadband Network with a quote from one of the co-founders of Australia's most successful software company, Atlassian. Yesterday, on Channel 9's Financial Review Sunday program, Atlassian's Mike Cannon-Brookes said: The biggest problem the government has at the moment is that it doesn't understand technology broadly. That pretty much sums it up. I was amazed that this private members' business was brought to the House, considering how viciously this government is tearing apart the National Broadband Network. The Abbott government is systematically destroying the world-class network that was going to be built under Labor and is replacing it with a hotchpotch of different networks at a slower timetable than promised and at much lower speeds. In particular, I find it astonishing that their strategic review of the NBN is being waved around as a showcase in this debate. The Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network tabled its first report in March this year and was scathing of the strategic review and the processes that the government is undertaking in its rollout. In essence, the interim report found that the assumptions of the strategic review are flawed and unreliable, and that the government should direct NBN Co to accelerate the fibre-to-the-premises rollout, not stop it. I would now like to concentrate on the second point made by the Senate select committee about accelerating the fibre-to-the-premises rollout, not stopping it. Labor's National Broadband Network was to deliver superfast broadband to the front door of 93 per cent of all Australians, about 70 per cent more than what will be delivered by this government. My electorate of Newcastle was due to have 100 per cent of coverage with fibre to all premises by the end of 2016—superfast access that would connect them to the rest of the country and the world. Every home, school, hospital, health clinic and business was set to be connected. Businesses made decisions to locate themselves, based on the availability of the NBN and were making long-term plans to move operations into Newcastle. Construction on the network commenced in the suburb of Mayfield last year. Planned works and interchange upgrades were underway or completed in New Lambton and Hamilton. Some residents in Thornton, Stockton and Beresfield were to benefit from broadband access for the first time. That is right: there are still places in Newcastle, a major regional economic hub, that have no broadband access whatsoever. My entire electorate now sits on a scrap heap of broken promises of this government, completely removed from the rollout schedule altogether. They have no idea of when they will receive the NBN or what level of service they will actually receive. Business plans are in disarray, with small and large enterprises heading back down the freeway to the Central Coast and Sydney, to access the big pipe of superfast broadband. Last week I was surprised to hear some good broadband news for the region, with rumours that the NBN was back on and that there would be a fibre rollout announcement. I thought they might restart the work at Mayfield and that maybe the people of Thornton or Stockton were going to get broadband for the very first time. I was, however, left disappointed with the detail when the announcement came out. Do not get me wrong: I am happy for the residents who are going to get the NBN close to Newcastle, but I am obviously disappointed to read that it was not coming to my constituents or businesses in my electorate but was to be rolled out in East Maitland just outside my electorate in the Liberal held seat of Paterson. One of the listed fundamentals of NBN Co's rollout is the prioritisation of construction of the NBN in communities in regional and rural Australia, with limited or no current access to broadband. Based on this fundamental and the announcement of the construction commencing in East Maitland, I naturally assumed that they were in the same boat as Thornton, about five kilometres away, with no broadband access at all. Research, however, shows that this was not the case. Using the Department of Communications MyBroadband checker, I got a quick insight into broadband availability and quality in East Maitland and nearby Thornton. According to the checker, the residents of East Maitland already have high levels of access to ADSL. Unfortunately, when I checked for Thornton it was still very much the case. The ratings, quite aptly given the situation there, came up as D, E and D, the lowest rankings possible on all measures. No more broken promises from this government, please, no more wrong priorities, no more out-of-date antiquated technologies, no more copper—we want a modern Australia. We deserve much more. (Time expired) Debate adjourned. Food Allergies 4214 11:41 Ms BURKE 83S Chisholm I move: That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) Australia has one of the highest incidences of food allergy in the world; (b) one in ten Australian babies aged 12 months have a food allergy; (c) the number of reported life-threatening reactions due to a food allergy has doubled in the last 10 years; and (d) in the past 20 years, hospital admissions for food anaphylaxis in Australia have doubled and increased five-fold in children aged zero to four years; and (2) calls upon the Government to make anaphylaxis and food allergy a national health priority, including: (a) establishing a national food allergy register to capture an accurate picture of food allergy reactions in Australia and statistics on patient outcomes; and (b) developing a model of care for food allergy management—to provide timely diagnosis, current information and ongoing access to quality medical care for people with food allergies. Why do I move this motion? Because allergic disease is tragically on the rise. This is a disease that is not just about getting a bit of a rash or getting a bit of a welter; this is about life-threatening, severe allergic reactions often appropriately referred to as anaphylaxis. It is the fastest-growing chronic disease in Australia but most people know very little about it or underestimate it severely. Allergic diseases include food, insect and drug allergies, asthma, allergic rhinitis or the often much maligned hay fever, and eczema. These are a mounting public health issue in Australia. Surprisingly, it is often just an Australian epidemic. We have one of the highest rates of food allergy in the world, with one in 10 Australian babies aged 12 months having had a food allergy already. The number of reported life-threatening reactions due to food allergy has doubled in the last 10 years and in the last 20 years hospital admissions for food allergy have doubled. It increases strikingly fivefold in children aged nought to four. There are a whole series of reasons why this is happening and why we are going there but that is not the intent of the motion today. The intent of the motion today is to bring awareness to both government and citizens about this national health epidemic and to call for this area to become a national health priority. Many people have said that is not the way to go, but at least it gets this issue on the map. Until now the only time it raises its head in a public debate is when tragically a child dies, and that is happening way too often. The statistics about allergic disease in Australia are startling. One estimates that allergic disease is actually costing Australia $30 billion per year. Around 20 per cent of the Australian population has an allergic disease. Recent studies report that 10 per cent of infants in Australia now have an immediate food allergy. Anaphylaxis due to food allergy has doubled in the last 10 years and around five per cent of adults are allergic to one or more drugs. This is often overreported, and that is another great concern. People think they are allergic to drugs when they are not; they need to get tested. Access to care is difficult, particularly in regional and remote areas where trained immunologists are just not present, particularly childhood immunologists. Allergy specialists are not out there in the numbers we need them. But also there is a huge lack of awareness about allergic reactions. My son is anaphylactic and that is probably why this is so close to my heart. He has been told on numerous occasions, 'Just eat more and you will grow a tolerance to it.' As he said when he was five to an adult, 'If I eat those nuts I will die.' The woman thought he was carrying on. There was a bit of a screaming match at a function I had when my five-year-old was defending his understanding of his disease. Now at 12 he just brushes people off and says, 'No, I don't want some, thank you.' While there is currently no cure for anaphylaxis, it is manageable and the majority of deaths are completely avoidable. We need a national allergy strategy to better coordinate and streamline how allergies are managed across the country. Tragically, I have now met many families who have suffered the absolute fate of being related to a sufferer with an anaphylactic reaction. I travelled to Canada to meet with Sarah Shannon, the mother of Sabrina, who was the creator of Sabrina's Law following her tragic death. Only last sitting week in parliament I held an anaphylaxis awareness day and we had Fiona Cho come and speak about the tragic loss of her brother Raymond, who died at 16 and at school—a completely avoidable death. Raymond knew he was allergic and the school knew he was allergic to nuts. A teacher brought them into a cooking class and they were put into a biscuit. Raymond, at 16, took that biscuit. He probably did not know there were nuts in it. Raymond died as teachers stood around not knowing how to administer an EpiPen and they stood around when he should have been given CPR. Raymond's family will never get over his death. Fiona was in floods of tears. Her parents have never come to terms with his death. Coronial inquest after coronial inquest has said that we need more understanding, more training and more consistency across the states. The Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy are calling to make this a national priority in health. It is not an answer to everything but it is the beginning. We need the premiers to come together at COAG. We need consistency. We should not have any more tragedies. The Baptists should not have sent their four-year-old off to kindergarten and not have him come home alive. I want to ensure we never see this happen again. (Time expired) 11:46 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I rise to speak on the motion put by my colleague the member for Chisholm on this very important issue in our local community. I would like to associate myself with the comments that she has just made. Food allergy has the potential for severe and life-threatening reactions. It affects an estimated four to six per cent of children and one to two per cent of adults. My first experience of this was as a former teacher. I remember having to be particularly careful when a student of mine had an allergy to nuts. I remember that it was incredibly difficult to monitor the food that was in the classroom and in the playground because it may cause a severe allergic reaction in this student. It is interesting to note that only nine foods cause 90 per cent of allergic reactions—that is, cow's milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, sesame seeds, soy, fish, shellfish and wheat, among other things. I agree that more needs to be done to increase the awareness of food allergy and anaphylaxis in our local community, and the impact that it can have on individuals and their families. The Australian government is strongly committed to ensuring that there is sufficient information to make informed choices about the foods that consumers purchase. Food labelling in Australia is regulated by the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, which has strict and comprehensive requirements on labelling standards. In addition to this, the National Healthy School Canteens project that commenced in 2008 and was funded by the Australian government as part of the Australian Better Health Initiative has also been a positive step. I know that many schools in my electorate of Hasluck have found this project beneficial and it has increased the awareness of food allergies and their impact. Despite this, hospital admissions in Australia for severe allergic reactions have doubled over the last decade; equally in the USA and UK. In Australia, admissions for anaphylaxis due to food allergy in children aged zero to four are five times higher. Whilst out doorknocking in the northern region of my electorate, I met Sandra and talked about these issues and the increasing prevalence of anaphylaxis. Sandra's child suffers from a severe peanut allergy and she herself has a severe food allergy. Sandra believes that there is a lot that can be done to greatly improve the quality of life for those who live with the risk of anaphylaxis. I have had several discussions with Sandra and she has some interesting practical ideas as a mother and as a parent which I will be sharing with the Minister for Health. Currently, there are no standardised protocols for acute food allergy management across Australia. In Western Australia, there are three different protocols and I know that the Minister for Health in Western Australia, Dr Kim Hames MLA, is very aware of the issues surrounding food allergy and anaphylaxis. I commend the WA state government for some of the actions they have taken to increase the awareness and response protocols for food and allergy anaphylaxis. I also note and commend the COAG Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation. In May 2011, they endorsed the 2010 FSANZ review report and recommendations into determining whether improvements could be made to the existing regulatory approach, which allows wider food choices for allergic consumers without compromising their safety. This resulted in the creation of the Allergen Collaboration, which is a forum of representatives from state, territory and New Zealand governments, Australian and New Zealand allergy support associations and the food industry, including the food service sector. This is an excellent initiative and I look forward to the positive progress in the field of food allergy and anaphylaxis awareness in the very near future. Among the challenges that we often face, as was referred to by the member opposite, is the level of understanding of the sudden and rapid impact on a child if they have an allergy. As a teacher, I did not understand the use of the EpiPen at the time. I think that we need to give greater attention to some of the preventative measures that would ensure that no child loses their life because we do not understand their needs. The comment that I often hear, which the member also raised, is 'Eat more—you'll grow out of the allergy.' But you do not know what the tolerance level is. You do not know what the reaction or response is. When that occurs, what we need to have is the knowledge to be able to help. I would certainly support any initiative that addresses the needs of those who experience anaphylaxis or food allergies. 11:51 Ms HALL 83N Shortland At the commencement of my contribution to this debate I would like to acknowledge the member for Chisholm for her contribution, for bringing this to the parliament and, even more so, for the role that she has played in educating the parliament on this issue. She has educated the parliament and she has educated us as members of parliament, and we can go back to our electorates and talk with some knowledge about this issue. This has been a longstanding campaign by the member for Chisholm and we should acknowledge the fine work that she has done on this. When she says that we need to raise awareness, that it is a national epidemic, this is something that she has been doing for years. It is a message we need to take back to our electorates, because each and every one of us would have been approached by a constituent at some time who was suffering from some type of food allergy or whose child has had their life put in jeopardy simply because they have a food allergy. It is something that as a community and as a society we really need to take very seriously. It is not just a fad. It is not something that people manufacture. It is something that is truly life threatening, and that is the message that needs to get out there: this is life threatening. As a country, we need to put it high on the agenda because it is increasing. We do not know why it is increasing but it is an issue that needs to be addressed. As has been said by previous speakers, food allergy occurs in one out of 20 children. But the figure that is even more horrific is that one in 10 Australians aged 12 months has a food allergy. That is a very significant number in our population. These food allergies, as has already been stated, are life threatening, and particularly the allergy to peanuts and some seafoods. These allergies are extremely life threatening and are allergies that you do not grow out of by more exposure to the food. You do not grow out of it just because you get a bit older. They are with you for life and, as such, we need to address the issue. To see somebody with a severe anaphylactic reaction to food is frightening and something that must be avoided at all costs. It is only by having more information about what causes this response that we will ever get to the core of the matter and understand what it is about. It is much more common in boys than it is in girls. Quite a bit of information has been put out there showing that allergy experts and immunologists cannot explain this rise in food allergies in children over the past 20 years. That needs to be investigated. We need to know what is causing this increase, and to put in place strategies to deal with it and ways of managing it. A person that does have a severe allergy to a food must manage it. It is a lifetime management. The member for Chisolm talked about the trials her son went through. There is a lot of peer pressure put upon people around their eating habits. There is just no reason that has been put forward for this increase. There is no end in sight. It is occurring not only in Australia. As the member for Chisolm pointed out, we are leaders in that field. It is particularly common in developed countries. The member for Chisolm's motion calls for the establishment of a national food allergy register to capture an accurate picture about food allergy in Australia and statistics. This is very important and should be endorsed by this parliament. (Time expired) 11:56 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I said with DisabilityCare, and particularly with this issue, that whilst I can empathise with the family—in this case the member for Chisolm and her son—and whilst I can empathise with somebody whose child is disabled, I do not live it every day. I do not live it every moment of the day. I felt for the member for Hasluck when he was saying to this chamber that as a teacher he had to be on top of his task with regard to a child with an allergy. I cannot imagine what it is like to be a teacher these days, with the figures you have just heard from each of the speakers—one in 10 children may be affected, one in 10 babies, one in 20 young people, one in 20 adults. These have been described as large numbers. No, these are gigantuous numbers. These are very large numbers of people. The reason I have chosen to speak on this motion today is this: I have no idea why in just my generation—our generation, for most of the people in this room, except for some of the beautiful young ones—this phenomenon has come upon us like a creeping cancer. So I ask myself questions. What is it? Is it the food chain? Is it something different that we are doing today that our parents did not do? The member who spoke previously gave the example of a mother who had many allergies and whose child had an allergy. Therefore, it was generational. But we have many occasions now where both parents, and their generations before them, did not have any allergies to any of these foods. So that is a question. At least I have a doctor beside me who is nodding his head. I say again: what is the question? What are we doing? Why have we got, even, cancer rates higher in this generation than before? I can reason that away by saying that in previous generations we did not know all the things we know now. We did not know children were suffering. Perhaps I could reason away and say we did not know they were suffering with an allergy. They just had to burst their way through it. Some did and some did not. We only came to that place where we found the children who did not grow out of it, as has been suggested here, by having more of the same. As a member of parliament, I had a staff member who was allergic not to nuts but to one particular nut. She carried an EpiPen. In the fullness of time, after she left my care, she had an episode because in the food that she was eating there was a trace of that particular nut and she ended up in Canberra Hospital. Even with the EpiPen, she still ended up in Canberra Hospital. Families live with that knowledge. Mums, dads, families and individuals just have to get on, accept and know that it is ever present. I am sorry I did not hear the member for Chisholm's address but I gleaned from the other remarks that she has been directly in that position herself and having to send her son out into a community that has not got that knowledge and where he was not protected totally and had to be responsible for himself at every moment of the day. Whenever there was food around, he had to be aware. You can imagine today what it is like at a kid's party. Today at a kid's party—I know it was only 100s and 1000s on bread and butter when we were kids—there would be a huge amount of food that they have to protect themselves from. It is not an easy question. I hope that the new research funds that the government are putting in place will have some long-term effect for this to be resolved. But, like all of the rest of you, I have a question: how did we get to this place? 12:01 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I begin by also acknowledging and commending the member for Chisholm for not only bringing this motion to the parliament but also her tireless advocacy on this matter. I regret I was unable to go to the morning tea a couple of weeks ago but I would have liked to. I speak not only because I support this motion but because I understand it as my wife has food allergies. She is allergic to shellfish, and I know the constant battle everywhere we go of having to make sure that the food she is about to consume does not contain shellfish. More specifically and perhaps more frighteningly, not long ago our baby granddaughter was diagnosed as being allergic to eggs, having suffered anaphylaxis. Even though I was not home, I am told that for my wife and daughter-in-law it was a terrifying experience not knowing how to deal with her at the time, not realising what was happening and then finally getting her to settle so they could go to the doctor. That opened our eyes to the importance of this issue across the spectrum I note that the member for McMillan talked about what it must be like for a schoolteacher. Again, I speak with a bit of authority, because I speak to my daughter regularly. She is a schoolteacher. She teaches grade 1 students, little kids that quite often do not understand the risks that they might be taking when they exchange or share food with one another. It has become part and parcel of her training to do what she can to ensure that the children are aware of the dangers of being allergic to certain foods. In fact only last week she was telling me that right now, as opposed to peanuts, the real danger is walnuts, which have become the food source that they always look out for. The motion, quite rightly, talks about statistics, and I note the member for Chisholm has talked about Australia having one of the highest rates of food allergies in the world and, in particular, the concern that about one in 10 babies has a food allergy. I note that she talked about the $30 billion health cost but I point out that, specifically, over $1 billion of that, I understand, is directly associated with health costs in this country as opposed to the other costs associated with lost productivity and social costs that are incurred as a result of people suffering from food allergies. I too sometimes wonder about how and why we have come to this point where food allergies are more prevalent. Perhaps it is because of the different medicines that are now available because of the way we produce our foods both here and in other countries or because of the use of chemicals generally for industrial applications and the like that we are exposed to on a regular basis. We do not know the answers, but something is happening and something is changing the way our immune systems are able to cope with the different allergies that have now become known to us. The critical issue is that many people are not aware that they are allergic to a particular food or a chemical until they suffer an anaphylactic reaction. Probably then they are not certain what has caused the reaction or what is happening to them. So unlike an illness or another health problem where they can take certain precautions, food allergies quite often come from left field without any awareness whatsoever. I believe the motion goes to the heart of this issue. It talks about information, awareness, diagnosis, management and expertise in caring. In other words, we may not know what the courses are but we certainly can take a much stronger stance in managing the fallout from the allergic reaction. Talking about education, education right across the spectrum from the medical profession, patients understanding how to manage their own symptoms, parents, school staff, restaurant staff, cafeteria staff to sports club people is important. Where food is likely to be consumed it is important that people are aware how to react and to respond when somebody comes down with a food allergy and is unprepared for it. Education obviously is important. I believe schools are taking a greater role in ensuring that teachers, parents and children are much more alert and aware of the possible risks of reaction to food. This is an important motion. It is an important issue for the nation. I commend the member for Chisholm for bringing it to the attention of the House. 12:06 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby I would like to pay tribute to the member for Chisholm for moving this motion. She has been a long-time champion for the cause of allergy and anaphylaxis and has moved a number of motions like this in this chamber. I pay tribute to her interest and to her campaigning. As a number of previous speakers have said, the incidence of food allergy and anaphylaxis has increased dramatically over a generation. The scientists have some theories but no definitive answer as to why. There have been explanations proposed which have not yet been proven. People having less exposure to infections in childhood is the hygiene theory. It may be due to delayed introduction of allergenic food such as eggs, peanuts or tree nuts, to food processing or to skin exposure to products such as unrefined nut-based moisturisers. The increasing incidence of food allergy affects 10 per cent of children up to one year of age, between four to eight per cent of children aged up to five and approximately two per cent of adults. Like the member for Chisholm, I also have a child who was diagnosed at a very young age with a peanut allergy. We had a number of meetings with a specialist and went through what all parents of children with allergies go through, wanting to make sure that the processes are right at the school, at school camps and at organisations like Scouts. We have been quite lucky in that, while it appeared his allergy was a serious skin reaction, there was no anaphylaxis and he has responded to a challenge and is now able to eat peanuts. I agree with the previous speaker. Schools, in my experience, are thinking through this more and more. Teachers are getting better at making sure that certain foods are excluded from the classroom and, if one child has an allergy, every family has to keep those foods out. We are seeing better training of teachers so that they are aware of what needs to be done. But there is still a lot more that we can do. The Medical Research Future Fund, which was announced in the budget and which will have $1 billion go towards it initially, and hopefully over time $20 billion, does offer the benefit of more research being done in this area. It is important that we do continue to find what is causing the increase in food allergy and also what can be done in terms of children who have the potential, with strict avoidance, to actually grow out, as it were, of this condition. There have been a number of pleasing initiatives since we last had a motion on this. The National Healthy Schools Canteens project, which was funded by the Australian government as part of the Australian Better Health Initiative, developed national guidance and training to help canteen managers make healthier food and drink choices for school canteens, and food allergy was definitely a part of it. Food allergy needs to be diagnosed by a specialist, and if someone does have an allergy then strict avoidance of the food is extremely important. So there are guidelines and resources for school canteens across Australia, drawing on existing material and the Australian Dietary Guidelines. There is also an Allergen Collaboration, which is a food allergen portal which provides different sectors in the community—people in the food industry, health professionals and schools—with links to best practice food allergen resources and key messages to promote in the different sectors. This is an important issue and I commend the member for Chisholm for raising this issue. Debate adjourned. Defence Personnel 4221 12:12 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I move: That this House: (1) joins with the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader and Defence Minister in acknowledging the service of the more than 30,000 Defence Force personnel deployed in the Middle East since October 2001; (2) supports the sentiment of appreciation outlined in the Prime Minister's speech at the welcome home parade for more than 250 Darwin-based soldiers marking the end of their deployment to Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan, during 2013; (3) acknowledges the enormous sacrifice of Australia's mission in Afghanistan—during which 40 soldiers lost their lives and more than 260 personnel were injured; (4) affirms its pride and ongoing support for the Australian Defence Force as one of the most highly trained, professional and respected forces in the world; (5) pays tribute to these personnel through its support for the national day of commemoration to be held on 21 March 2015 to recognise the contribution and sacrifice of Australian troops who served in Afghanistan and the Middle East; and (6) acknowledges the great courage and personal sacrifice of our Defence Force personnel and their families to keep our country safe and to build a better future for the people of Afghanistan and the broader Middle East. There are times when saying thankyou simply does not do justice to the sentiment being expressed nor does it properly capture the sense of debt and appreciation that the speaker is attempting to convey. This is one such occasion. As the motion states, next year on 21 March there will be a national day of commemoration to formally honour the service of the more than 30,000 Defence Force personnel who deployed to the Middle East since October 2001. It is important for all of us to look back on that time and reflect on the success of the operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq. In October 2001, the world was still reeling at the terror attacks on the United States that left thousands dead and shook the free world to its very core. Australia was part of the broad based, multigovernmental military force put together by key allies of the United States to respond to the September 11 attacks. The coalition was tasked with breaking up the terror organisation al-Qaeda that had masterminded the American attacks. Its brief was also to hunt down al-Qaeda's leader Osama bin Laden and with an eye on the long term to reduce the risk of other strikes taking place in the future. Two years later, Australia also joined with the United States in a multination troop deployment as part of what was briefly referred to as the coalition of the willing. While not sanctioned by the United Nations and resisted by some members in the national parliament, the Howard administration was unflinching in its support of our ally and the objectives outlined in Iraq as part of the broader objective of fighting terror. The 13 years that followed were among the longest ongoing military operations in our history. In particular, the Afghan conflict had been described as our longest war. We had deployed personnel on land, on the sea and in the air. Our P3 Orion aircraft carried out unceasing patrols of the sky, warning of missile attacks and dangerous enemy movement. Our ships kept the Gulf peaceful and, further, patrolled and intercepted pirates and drug smugglers. On land, we have worked with 47 other nations to bring a new stability to the Middle East. Led by the Americans, our great partner in an alliance first forged in blood and fire in Darwin, we have toppled a dictator who murdered many. I will not shy away from the fact that our duty in the Middle East was also extremely hard. The preparation involved practising survival skills being able to shoot efficiently and don gas masks in an instant and becoming proficient in all of the equipment that personnel carried night and day. A significant portion of the 31,000 Australian personnel deployed to the Middle East had passed through Robertson Barracks in the Northern Territory. Once they were deemed by their instructors to be capable of meeting the demands of this arduous posting, they were allowed to proceed to the theatre of operations. Often disaster could come out of the clear blue sky with speed and no warning—Katyusha rockets, mortar fire, machine guns; all could be directed their way. The days were long: 14 to 16 hours on duty, seven days a week. I am told that a favourite saying of personnel in the Middle East, and particularly Afghanistan, was: 'The days are long but the weeks are short.' This gives a context for the lives many troops experienced. Letters and parcels from home were a highlight. The wounding or death of someone known was a most significant event, but there was nothing left to do but to soldier on. The same applied at home, where family members not only kept the home fires burning but also provided a rock and the very foundation of faith in our family, and faith in the future. Last month, it was my pleasure to join in the last few kilometres of the 400-kilometre Families of the Fallen walk, from Mataranka to Robertson Barracks. This remarkable trek was about raising awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder as well as raising funds for the returned soldiers to walk the Kokoda Trail. Ray and Pam Palmer are the parents of Scott Palmer, who was killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan in 2010. Ray and Pam have channelled their grief at Scott's death into helping servicemen and servicewomen who carry psychological scars from their deployment. The federal government also recognises the importance of post-deployment mental health support and has in place a comprehensive range of screening and referral services to help personnel. I would like to finish by putting on the record my thanks and my acknowledgement of the enormous sacrifice of the Australian mission in Afghanistan and by once again affirming my pride and ongoing support for our Australian Defence Force, as one of the most highly trained, professional and respected forces in the world. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 208884 Is there a seconder for the motion? Mr Simpkins HWE I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:17 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Firstly, it is a great honour to be supporting this motion—as I was honoured recently to join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, in welcoming home troops to Darwin. In doing so, we were also acknowledging the service of the more than 30,000 Defence Force personnel deployed in the Middle East since October 2001 under Operation Slipper. We were also acknowledging the 40 brave Australian soldiers whose lives were lost over that period and the 260 personnel who have come home injured with visible injuries and the many who have come home with disguised, or as yet undiagnosed, mental health issues. To them, we owe our great debt. It is a great honour for me to stand in this place and say that these men and women—those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and those men and women who have served in this theatre of operations over this very long period of time—are revered by our nation. The welcome home of more than 250 Darwin based soldiers marked the end of the deployment to Uruzgan province in Afghanistan during 2013. It is worth making sure that we acknowledge that over the long run since 2001 we have deployed Navy assets and Air Force assets, as well as Army assets, right across the region. We need to acknowledge their enormous contributions—the previous speaker mentioned our P3s, but there are also other Air Force assets and Navy assets which were deployed in the Gulf and the surrounding area—and the work they have been doing and continue to do in countering piracy on sea and in intercepting drug shipments across that region. We still have troops in Afghanistan and Australian logistic personnel based in the Middle East in support of Operation Slipper who are located outside of Afghanistan, and we have detachments of patrol and transport aircraft whose personnel continue to support operations in Afghanistan, based out of Al Minhad Air Base in the United Arab Emirates. It is very important that we understand the sacrifice which has been made by so many on our behalf. I also acknowledge those who have been recognised for their conspicuous courage by being awarded the Victoria Cross: Mark Donaldson, Ben Roberts-Smith and Daniel Keighran. Cameron Baird was awarded his posthumously only this year. In acknowledging this, we should accept there are many unsung heroes who were never recognised in the way these brave men have been. There are so many who have sacrificed so much. They work on our behalf and continue to work on our behalf. To them we owe our eternal gratitude. The member for Solomon spoke about the work of Ray Palmer and his wife, Pam. We have lost six Darwin based soldiers in Afghanistan in the time that we have been there. One of the Territory lads was Scott Palmer, the son of Ray and Pam. He was operating with 2nd Commando Regiment and was lost, as we heard, in a helicopter crash. Ray was the inspiration behind Families of the Fallen recently walking 400 kilometres through my electorate, from Mataranka to Robertson Barracks, to commemorate the 40 lost in Afghanistan andto raise funds for Kokoda walks, a very important source of focus and reconnection for veterans as they face life after service. I also want to acknowledge a wonderful mother who is in the chamber today and who will speak next, I think. Her son I proudly met in Afghanistan as a serving soldier. I congratulate him for his service to our great country. One of my staff, Luke Gosling, himself a former soldier, spent time working with Ray and his wife, Pam, and with the families and comrades. I want to finish by talking about the important role of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in looking after our men and women after they have returned from service. The Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence are joined at the hip, as they should be, because it is extremely important that we understand that these veterans remain the clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs for the remainder of their lives. Whatever state they are in, whatever help they require, we need to make sure that this government and this country stand beside them and make sure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is appropriately resourced to look after their short-term and long-term interests and those of their families. I wish to salute all those serving men and women who have done this nation proud in their service. 12:22 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan As a former major in the Army and having served for 15 years, the place of the Defence Force in the history of our nation is very special to me—no more so than when I was elected to this place and the outcomes of national policy resulted in 40 deaths and 260 wounded in the war in Afghanistan. But that has always been the way: in this parliament we decide what needs to be done and the Defence Force goes out there and gets the job done. They do as ordered but always with distinction and honour. That is why our highly professional service men and women are so well regarded and indeed sought after when fighting is required. The traditions of our troops, of course, date back to the war in Sudan and the Boer wars, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Malayan emergency and confrontation and then Vietnam. Our service men and women have been in Cambodia, Somalia, Bougainville, the Solomons and then on to Afghanistan and across the Middle East, where 30,000 of our Defence Force personnel have served with distinction since 2001. I would like to pay tribute to each of those 40 men that lost their lives in Afghanistan. Andrew Russell was a 33-year-old sergeant in the SAS when he died from his wounds from a vehicle mine in February 2002. David Pearce, 41, was killed when serving on 8 October 2007. Matthew Locke MG was 33 and a sergeant in the SAS when on 25 October 2007 he was injured in a firefight with the Taliban. He was shot in the chest and he died later from his wounds. Luke Worsley, a 26-year-old commando, was shot and killed on 23 November 2007. Jason Marks, a 27-year-old commando, was killed after an intense firefight with Taliban insurgents on 27 April 2008. Sean McCarthy, 25, was a signalman in the SAS. He died from his wounds after the vehicle he was in was hit by a roadside bomb on 8 July 2008. Michael Fussell, a 25-year-old lieutenant in the commandos, was killed by an IED whilst on patrol on 27 November 2008. Greg Sher, a 30-year-old commando, was killed in a rocket attack on 4 January 2009. Mathew Hopkins, 21, an infantry corporal, was fatally injured on 16 March 2009 while on patrol. Brett Till, a 31-year-old sergeant, an EOD tech, was killed on 19 March 2009 while trying to defuse an IED. Benjamin Ranaudo, 22, an infantry private, was killed on 18 July 2009 by an antipersonnel explosive device. Jacob Moerland, 21, a sapper, was killed on 7 June 2010 by an IED. Darren Smith, 25, in the same unit, subsequently died of wounds after being evacuated. His explosives detection dog, Herbie, was also killed by the blast. Scott Palmer, 27, and Timothy Aplin, 38, were privates and were both killed in the crash of a Blackhawk helicopter on 21 June 2010. Benjamin Chuck, 27, a private, died of his injuries following that crash. Nathan Bewes, 23, an infantry private, was killed by an improvised explosive device on 9 July 2010. Jason Brown, 29, an SAS trooper, was shot and killed on 13 August 2010. Grant Kirby, 35, and Tomas Dale, 21, were infantry privates and were killed by an IED on 20 August 2010. Jared MacKinney, 28, a lance corporal in the 6th Battalion, was shot and killed during the Battle of Derapet on 24 August 2010. Richard Atkinson, 22, an engineer corporal, was killed by an improvised bomb on 2 February 2011. Jamie Larcombe, 21, a sapper in the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment, was shot on 19 February 2011. Brett Wood, MG, DSM, 32, a commando sergeant, was killed by an improvised explosive device on 23 May 2011. Andrew Jones, 25, a lance corporal, was shot by a member of the Afghan National Army on his way to guard duty on 30 May 2011. Marcus Case, 27, a lieutenant in aviation, was killed when a Chinook helicopter crashed during resupply on 30 May 2011. Rowan Robinson, 23, was killed in action on 6 June 2011. Todd Langley, 35, a commando sergeant, was shot and killed on 4 July 2011. Matthew Lambert, 26, of the infantry, was killed by an IED on 22 August 2011. Bryce Duffy, 26, an artillery captain; Ashley Birt, a 22-year-old engineer; and Luke Gavin, a 27-year-old infantry lance corporal, were shot and killed by a member of the Afghan National Army on 29 October 2011. Blaine Diddams, MG, 40, a sergeant in the SAS, was shot and killed during an engagement with insurgents on 2 July 2012. Nathanael Gallagher, 23, was killed in a helicopter crash in August 2012. Mervyn John McDonald, 30, a lance corporal, was killed in the same crash. Stjepan Milosevic, 40, a lance corporal in the 2nd/14th Light Horse, was shot and killed by a member of the Afghan National Army on 30 August 2012. Robert Poate, 23, a private, was shot and killed in the same incident. James Martin was shot and killed in the same incident. Scott James Smith, an engineer corporal, was killed in an IED explosion in 2012. They served well. Rest in peace. They served their nation well for a just cause and a better world. 12:28 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo John Curtin once said: All governments, in all countries, and whatever their policy or label, profess to favour international peace. All claim to be non-aggressive; all claim to be armed purely for defensive purposes. Not one admits the desire for war, but all are ready for participation in war. And that is very true of this nation. Traditionally, it is the House that decides if this nation goes to war, yet we are not the ones who bravely enact these decisions. It is the ordinary men and women of our electorates who stand up and are ready to serve and, like many parliamentarians and the people we have heard from today, men and women from my electorate of Bendigo did serve in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Today I wish to acknowledge and thank them for their service. I would like to acknowledge 23-year-old army medic Lance Corporal Jessica Bailey from Bendigo. Bailey worked in the Army's 8 Close Health Company in Darwin, and at the peak of operations Bailey and her team were working 16-hour days nursing multiple trauma patients. Bailey also assisted with patrols outside the wire with the EOD guys on demolition duties, but it never occurred to this young soldier that she would be a trailblazer for women in combat. The armed services, the ADF, continue to challenge and continue to give opportunities to our young people in the most dangerous circumstances. In an interview she said that the deployment has been a great opportunity and she believes that she will continue to have further opportunities with the Army. Lance Corporal Bailey has a younger brother in the Army, serving in the 7th Battalion, from Adelaide, and two ridiculously proud parents in Bendigo. Like many Bendigonians, Bailey was proud to serve. Our area has a proud tradition of young people ready to stand and serve when required. Noel Edwards, a 20-year-old Bendigo engineer, enlisted swiftly on the day that the First World War was declared in August 1914. He was the first in line at the Bendigo Town Hall when recruiting occurred. He was there before the doors opened. On 25 April 1915 Edwards struggled ashore, like so many other young men from Bendigo. Whether it be in the First World War or as the citizens of today, Bendigo people have always been ready to stand up and be part of the Australian armed services. But it is not just the women and men who have served that I wish to acknowledge today. We also have a proud tradition in Bendigo of supporting our men and women in the equipment that protects them whilst they are overseas. The Bendigo Bushmaster has contributed to saving at least 300 lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. This vehicle was designed in Bendigo. It is something that we are proud of. We are proud to know that our men and women working at this facility helped contribute towards our armed services. This vehicle was upgraded at the request of our serving soldiers. These improvements helped save further lives on deployment in Afghanistan. It is a great success story. Apart from creating jobs and continuing to secure those jobs, it has also helped to save lives. Whether it be by building the equipment that helps protect our armed services or through our men and women, even in my electorate we have a proud and strong heritage and commitment to ensuring that our nation has strong armed services. There is a strong partnership between Thales and Soldier On, which supports wounded and sick soldiers. Recently, at a ceremony at Bendigo, Soldier On chairman Peter was there with a number of family members to thank the people who worked in the facility for the production of the Bushmaster. Every week there are families and wounded soldiers who turn up at Bendigo Thales to thank the men and women who built the vehicles. They say that without the Bushmaster they might not be alive today. Anzac Day this year was one of our first opportunities to thank returning soldiers at the end of the conflict in Afghanistan. I was proud to be part of the Mount Macedon Dawn Service, where a veteran, a local Afghan veteran on deployment, laid 40 red roses on behalf of the Mount Macedon Dawn Service and the local community to say thank you in acknowledgement. It is important that we acknowledge and recognise the service of our men and women who form our Australian Defence services. I, too, support this motion, salute their service and thank them. 12:33 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise to support this motion and, in doing so, congratulate the member for Solomon. I know that she is a great support to the many troops stationed in Darwin, particularly at Robertson Barracks and Larrakeyah Barracks. She is there for them when they need her, and she has spoken up many times in this place in support of their needs. In my maiden speech I mentioned the fact that it is the government's decision whether we send people to war. We have wonderful Australian Defence personnel, men and women, who are prepared to put their lives on the line for our democracy and for our freedom of speech. It is our decision in this place whether they go and where they go. In the first week after my election, before I had even been sworn in in this place, I had the sad opportunity to go to several services in memory of some of the soldiers who had died who were members of 6th Battalion RAR, part of Gallipoli Barracks, at Enoggera, in my electorate of Ryan. I attended the memorial services and funerals for privates Tomas Dale and Grant Kirby and for Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney in those first few weeks. Let us never forget these brave Australians and all of our troops and veterans who have answered the call whenever their country has asked. Equally, we must never forget that these courageous men and women have volunteered, knowing that they put their own lives at risk to ensure our safety. The Australian troops have spent many years in Afghanistan and the Middle East, but they have also achieved great things. We must always look at what legacy they have left and at what they have achieved in their time there. I refer in particular to Uruzgan province, where Australian soldiers did a lot of work and leave behind some great assets, including 26 schools for girls. This is an area where girls were not going to school and could not go there safely. I have just come from the House of Representatives chamber where we spoke about the Nigerian terrorist groups trying stop girls going to school. Yet our troops have left behind 26 schools for girls. We have also left behind over 200 kilometres of sealed roads and also bridges so that people can get around their country. We have left behind doctors and nurses and, hopefully, some better democracy and better representation, as well as a safer place for women. I was very fortunate, Mr Deputy Speaker Porter—and I know that you know what a strong advocate I am for the ADF parliamentary program—to be able to go over to Afghanistan and be with our troops. The member for Solomon went to the Middle East at the same time. I was with our troops at Al Minhad, at Tarin Kot and then at Kandahar. It was quite an eye-opener for me. I thought I was going to be very clever and go there before my son was deployed—possibly a mistake in hindsight. Our soldiers, our men and women, did the most amazing job in an incredibly difficult situation. I look in particular at the Role 3 hospital in Kandahar, where they said that, if you still had a heartbeat, you would live; you would come out alive. That was because of the great work of our volunteer doctors and nurses who were participating in running, with the Americans, the Role 3 hospital there. I saw the work they did in Tarin Kot. Unfortunately, I was there during fighting season so they would not let me outside the gates—probably a good idea in hindsight. I have the most utmost respect and admiration for our service men and women. As the great-granddaughter of Australia's longest-serving defence minister, as the daughter of a fighter pilot and prisoner of war survivor from World War II and, as the member for Lingiari said, as the mother of a serving soldier who has served in Afghanistan, I have to pay tribute to the wonderful job that our men and women do in the services. I am proud of the contribution they have made in Australia's name and of the contribution made by thousands of Australian service men and women who have individually helped to make that contribution. We expect the best from our troops and they always give it. To all of those troops and, importantly, to their families, I thank you. To our special forces, who continue nonstop in a relentless and magnificent manner, I acknowledge the huge contribution you make against all odds. I seek leave to table the list of soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan fighting for Australia so that their names are on the permanent record of our parliament. Lest we forget. Leave granted. 12:38 Mr GRIFFIN VU5 Bruce I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Solomon in acknowledging the service of more than 30,000 Defence Force personnel who have served in the Middle East since 2001. I would also like to, as part of that process, share in the acknowledgement of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country—some 40 who lost their lives and some 260 who have been wounded as a result of their service. I also support the sentiment in the remarks made by the Prime Minister at the welcoming home parade of more than 250 troops in Darwin who had returned from their service in Afghanistan's Uruzgan province in commending the services of more than 30,000 Defence Force personnel who have been deployed since 2001. Australia has played a significant part in the reshaping of Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and the commencement of Operation Slipper, when the first contingent of special forces troops departed. Since 2001, we have seen an Afghanistan where children—most importantly, young girls—have been able to access education more easily, the media has been made freer, and the most basic access to education and health care have been afforded to women—something that was scarce in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Afghanistan still remains one of the most dangerous countries on earth and there are still severe problems with poverty, violence and insecurity. This is evident when looking at the dangers so many Afghans faced when carrying out their democratic right to vote in this year's election. However, the efforts of our service men and women should be noted, and they should be congratulated for the work that they have done. They have strived to ensure a brighter future for Afghanistan and they have certainly contributed greatly to the number of successes that have occurred in Afghanistan over the past decade. I will just give a few examples, because often it is hard to quantify the achievements that have been made when there is so much bad news around. For example, in education, the number of schools has increased from 34 in 2006 to around 200 active schools in 2013, including 26 girls-only schools and 19 co-ed schools. Community based education classes have been established in the most difficult to access areas, providing 2,500 children, including more than 500 girls, with access to basic education. Active students are up fivefold from 2006 to 2013, with over 60,000 children attending school, 15 per cent of whom are girls. Five hundred and sixteen students graduated, including 36 girls, in 2012. There are about 1,500 teachers in the province, including 77 female ones—a 15 per cent increase from 2010. And the first university campus in Uruzgan opened in 2011, a branch of the Kandahar University. Turning to some examples in health: health facilities have increased from nine in 2006 to 29 facilities in 2013, so there are now 29 public healthcare facilities and 322 health posts in operation throughout the province, staffed by 106 healthcare professionals and 493 volunteer community health workers. There is improved maternal health care: up to 80 per cent of women now receive at least one antenatal visit, up from 50 per cent in 2007, and 24 new midwives and 26 nurses have been trained. So, as we can see, there have been advances. But, as we also concede, in modern Afghanistan it is going to be a difficult row to hoe. But, frankly, having been there and seen the work that our troops have done, I think that they can all be very proud of that work. The professionalism, skill, empathy and compassion that they have displayed since 2001 in what has been a very dangerous and inhospitable environment is something they can all be very proud of. I had the privilege, as I mentioned, of going to Kandahar and Tarin Kot and also to the base at Al Minhad and seeing firsthand the work that was being done in 2011. Also, in 2012 I had the opportunity to spend a few days on board HMAS Melbourne in the Gulf and to see the work that was being done by our naval forces as part of the multinational force with respect to security in that area. They are all serving and they have all served in the very finest Anzac tradition, and it is something that we should remember and should applaud into the future. I will pick up on a couple of comments from an earlier speaker. We know that when we send people to war, when we send them into harm's way, they get harmed—we know that. What is really important is that when they come back we acknowledge that service but also encourage them to seek the assistance that they may need. Some people can go through what they have gone through and it will not impact on them greatly, but many will bear the scars into the future. I urge anyone who was part of our forces there who is feeling that they have got problems, to embrace the capacity to get help through government services like DVA. It is a difficult row to hoe for all who face those sorts of challenges, but we as a nation owe them a great debt, and we need to ensure that they get the assistance that they need. 12:43 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass I congratulate and join the member for Solomon in acknowledging the service of more than 30,000 of our troops who have deployed to the Middle East since October 2001. As someone who deployed on the first commitment to Afghanistan in 2001, I was reminded that 12 years had passed when I welcomed my daughter Captain Julia Nikolic back home from her second tour of Afghanistan late last year. Twelve years is a long commitment in any war. During that time, we suffered 260 serious casualties and 40 of our troops were killed fighting Taliban insurgents. Accordingly, I acknowledge the courage and sacrifice of our troops and their families. Their contribution has been not only to safeguard our country but to help deliver a better future for the people of Afghanistan and the Middle East. I acknowledge also the internal struggle now being waged by many veterans—private issues often exacerbated by isolation, both real and perceived. As a parliament, as a community, we can and must do more to understand and lessen their burden through practical and inclusive engagement with the veteran community. We and our predecessors in this parliament sent these people to war. We must and will now aid their recovery from wounds, whether physical or psychological. We must and will continue to honour and thank them—an example was the heartfelt public thanks of the Prime Minister when speaking to 250 Darwin-based veterans newly returned from Afghanistan in late 2013—but we will seek to do so in a very Australian way, which is practical, lowpkey and plain speaking, and which befits, as it were, the pragmatic nature of its audience. And while the troops may not admit to it publicly it is generally appreciated by them. With this in mind, the government intends holding a national day of commemoration on 21 March 2015 to recognise Australian troops who served in Afghanistan and the Middle East area of operations and to affirm our pride and continuing support for the Australian Defence Force as one of the most highly trained, professional and respected military forces in the world. We are lucky to have them, and to enjoy the safety and wellbeing that our troops, both past and present, have helped deliver. Their service—their sacrifice—is very literally our life and liberty. In closing, please allow me one final reflective comment about defence families, a subject of which I have precious personal and practical experience. Very regrettably, defence families are sometimes forgotten when it comes to public recognition. But, for all intents and purposes, they have arguably the most to lose in any military commitment. Because of this, partners and children also serve—and at times suffer—when this House places their loved ones in harm's way. And, later still, when the fighting has stopped, they are often left to put the pieces back together, to reshape family life completely after the death of a loved one or to help restore war ravaged sensibilities. For the most part, the only real means these families have to achieve this is unconditional love, support and understanding. They know better than most that war changes everything it touches, most especially human beings. In war, nations and statesmen win, lose or eventually agree the status quo and go home. But individuals, and especially families, always lose. The result is often quiet suffering, largely hidden, and an enduring and melancholy reality and future. In Australia's case the burden is now carried exclusively by professional military volunteers and their families. The age of large conscript armies is forever history. That is why a number of our veterans have done as many as 10 combat tours in Afghanistan. We in this House would all do well to remember these practical realities. On that note, it gives me much pleasure to acknowledge and honour our troops. I commend their sustained example and that of their families as being one sublimely etched by service, sacrifice, honour and purpose beyond self. Theirs is a very high standard, matched by some, but never bettered. Our recognition of them, their commitment and dedication is the very least they deserve. I thank the House. 12:48 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I agree with every word of your motion on Defence Force personnel, Deputy Speaker Griggs. I commend you for moving it and every other speaker for supporting it. At a time when political disagreement is otherwise fierce, I am pleased that when it comes to recognition of our defence forces there can be a display of bipartisanship like this. There was also a very moving display of bipartisan support when the Prime Minister and the opposition leader stood together in Tarin Kot late last year to mark our military contribution to the security of that part of Afghanistan. But the enduring image of that day was not of two politicians but of two hands interlocked: one belonging to the Chief of the Defence Force and the other belonging to the mother of one of the 40 souls lost in Afghanistan since 2001. That image hangs now hangs in many places, including on the wall of the command headquarters for Joint Task Force 633 at the Al Minhad Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, from where Australia oversees its commitment to the Middle East area of operations and its presence in Afghanistan, Qatar, Bahrain and elsewhere throughout that very difficult region. Every Australian is reared on our history of military heroism, but few get to see the modern incarnation of that commitment at work. That is why I consider myself privileged to have been able to spend a week with our forces in Afghanistan and in the Middle East very recently. I want to take the opportunity to thank the Commander of JTF633, Major General Craig Orme, for this opportunity and the members for Petrie and Boothby and Senator Smith, who accompanied me. We were struck by two things in particular: the quality of our people and the diversity of the tasks asked of them, from piloting unmanned surveillance planes out of Kandahar Airfield and Hercules transports to training the Afghan military and police, advising on intelligence matters, providing security, guiding up-armoured SUVs around the streets of Kabul, intercepting billions of dollars worth of narcotics on the sea, combating piracy, policing the skies, identifying and defusing ballistics, healing the sick and operating on the wounded, and much more. If there is one message that our men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan wanted us to relay, it is this: despite the transitioning of our mission, we still have hundreds of Australians working to make Afghanistan more secure—a place where little girls can go to school, as the member for Ryan mentioned; where small businesses can thrive, free of intimidation; where violence is an exception rather than a norm of Afghan life; and where the economy is less reliant on aid and drugs and more reliant on the talents and toil of the local people, who have been burdened for too long by conflict and carnage. Despite progress, there is still a long way to go. When my colleagues and I were in Kandahar, we had a tragic reminder that Afghanistan is still a very dangerous place when we attended a memorial service for five British brothers whose lives were taken in a helicopter incident just before we arrived. In Kabul, we were reminded of the threat still posed by improvised explosive devices, the infamous IEDs, as reports came in of Afghan nationals destroyed by these gutless weapons of Taliban and extremist choice. A culture of selflessness and sacrifice and the attitude and aptitude that Australians bring to the task over there are all reasons why we are such a sought-after partner in the planning and prosecution of joint efforts. It is not as well known or well appreciated that Australians are embedded in all levels of leadership of ISAF and other coalition bodies, working at the pointy end of our partnerships, respected and revered. In this sense, our contribution to Afghanistan since 2001 sits in a much more expansive context, and we should see our commitment there in that broader foreign policy context as well because, even if the dust were to settle in Afghanistan, challenges would still remain beyond in troubled parts of Pakistan and Iran and throughout pockets of the Middle East and northern Africa. Our entire nation is better off because of the work that the Australian Defence Force do to secure the lives and livelihoods of others, wherever they are sent. So I thank those I spent time with in Afghanistan, the UAE, Qatar and Bahrain for the opportunity to see them work. As ambassadors for our country in a troubled part of the world, they bring credit to our nation and its people. And, like the 40 souls we have lost and those who have come home with other scars, obvious and not so obvious and which require our ongoing care, the contribution of 30,000 Australians will never be forgotten by the country they serve and have served with such distinction and such honour. Debate adjourned. Byron Bay Bluesfest 4231 12:53 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I move: That this House notes that: (1) 2014 is the 25th anniversary of the Byron Bay Bluesfest, Australia's premier Blues and Roots music festival; (2) Bluesfest has been acclaimed as a premier contemporary music, tourist and business event, winning multiple awards from New South Wales Tourism, the Australia Event Awards, the Australia Helpmann Awards, and the North Coast Tourism Awards; (3) Bluesfest has also been internationally recognised for its work on environmental sustainability and minimising the environmental impact of the festival on its surroundings, being awarded the international 'A Greener Festival Award' seven years in a row; (4) in 2013, Bluesfest director Peter Noble and Bundjalung woman and festival director Rhoda Roberts founded the Boomerang festival, which celebrates the valuable contributions of our Indigenous people through music, art, dance, film and cultural exchanges; and (5) Bluesfest director Peter Noble received on 4 February 2014 the prestigious Rolling Stone Award recognising his outstanding career-long contribution to popular culture. Bluesfest at Byron Bay is an outstanding annual event held in my electorate of Richmond. This year the festival celebrated its 25th anniversary. The East Coast Blues Festival began in 1990 as a four-day indoor festival at the Arts Factory in Byron Bay, drawing a capacity crowd of about 6,000 in its first year. It quickly became known as the Byron Bay Bluesfest, then the Byron Bay Festival, and today it is simply known as the Bluesfest. In the Bluesfest, Australia had for the first time a genuine international multicultural music festival. In 1993, the event moved indoors to the Belongil Fields until relocating to Red Devil Park in 1997, where it stayed until 2007. The festival then moved back to Belongil Fields in 2008 and 2009 and, in 2010, moved to its new permanent home at the Tyagarah Tea Tree Farm, about 15 minutes drive north of Byron Bay. The event is absolutely massive. It includes seven performance stages, five licensed bars and a number of huge undercover food halls. There are also daily children's activities, merchandise stalls, onsite camping and market stalls. This year saw the silver anniversary of the Bluesfest draw its highest attendance in the history of the festival, with more than 104,500 people attending over the five days. This is a real credit to the festival director, Peter Noble, and his team, who do such an outstanding job. Economically, Bluesfest is a major contributor to the Byron Shire. Looking solely at the economic benefit of the 2013 Bluesfest, there was a total benefit of $64.1 million for the Byron Shire, including an estimated total income—that is, wages and salaries—of $10.8 million for the Byron Shire. Bluesfest is also very supportive of charitable groups as diverse as kindergartens and hospices and also of some musicians who have fallen on hard times. Bluesfest fundraising alone raised $130,000 for the victims of the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. Major charity fundraising over the past 15 years has been for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and guitar raffles at the festival have raised over $374,000 to date. This year, charity stalls included things like Australian Seabird Rescue, Bay FM, Byron Youth Service, Cancer Council, Playing for Change, The Uncle Project and Westpac Lifesaver Rescue. So we can see that Bluesfest brings enormous economic benefits to Byron Bay and, indeed, to the Northern Rivers. And it is a great support for many organisations. Bluesfest is also one of the most highly awarded festivals in Australia. In 2005 and 2006, Bluesfest won the Helpmann Award for Australia's Best Contemporary Music Festival. Between 1994 and 2010, Bluesfest has consistently been awarded Rhythms Magazine readers' poll for Australia's Best Music Festival. The awards Bluesfest has won are unprecedented for a regional event. Bluesfest has also been nominated by the international concert magazine Pollstar in 2005 and 2006 as one of the top five finalists in the International Venue of the Year category, alongside major festivals such as the Montreux Jazz Festival. Bluesfest is viewed as one of the world's great music festivals—something that we are very, very proud of. Bluesfest is not just about the music. It is also important to note that it is a leader in low carbon pollution tourism. Each year since 2007, Bluesfest has been awarded the international A Greener Festival Award, recognizing its outstanding commitment to sustainability. Another very exciting initiative of the Bluesfest director, Peter Noble, was to team up with Bundjalung woman and leading cultural creator, Rhoda Roberts, to create the first Boomerang Festival, which was held in 2013 for the first time. More than 5,000 people attended over the three days to celebrate Indigenous culture through traditional and contemporary music. I am sure it will continue to grow. I would like to acknowledge all the volunteers who helped with the Bluesfest Festival; they make an outstanding difference. I would also like to note that festival director, Peter Noble, took out the Rolling Stone Award at the 5th Annual Rolling Stone Awards held in Sydney recently. Congratulations to him! The award acknowledges the contribution by Peter not only to Bluesfest but also to the wider music industry that he has been a part of, at a professional level, for 50 years. It was fitting that Peter was awarded this honour as Bluesfest celebrated its 25th anniversary over the Easter long weekend. Bluesfest 2014 saw industry heavyweights such as John Mayer, Dave Matthews Band and Jack Johnson take the stage, alongside wonderful Australian artists such as the John Butler Trio, The Black Sorrows and John Williamson—to name a few of the great artists. The event has now grown to a point where artists from every continent appear. People make the pilgrimage from all around the world to attend the Bluesfest each year. It has an incredible reputation. For those who have been to Bluesfest, you know exactly what I mean. You know how special it is and how important it is. If you have not been and are interested in going to Bluesfest, then please make the trip to it next year. It is a unique, iconic and very special festival. It is one that we are very proud of in the Northern Rivers. I am very proud to have it in my electorate. I would certainly welcome everyone from all sides of the house to come along to see what the beautiful north coast has to offer. When it comes to Bluesfest, we have an outstanding festival—one that we are all incredibly proud of. In closing, I would again like to acknowledge the great work that Peter Noble does and has done as director over the years to put us on the world stage with Bluesfest. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 208884 Is the motion seconded? Mr Burke DYW I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12:58 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I would like to acknowledge the member for Richmond for moving this motion to honour not only Bluesfest but also the director, Peter Noble. The member for Richmond's electorate is just north of mine. The Byron Bay hinterland extends into the seat of Page. I commend the member for Richmond for getting out so much information in such a short space of time. I will certainly not even try to get close to getting out as much information as she did—I applaud it. I want to repeat a couple of points that the member for Richmond made, which I think tell a big story about Bluesfest. I see the member for Watson is in the chamber. I saw him at the Boomerang Festival, and he obviously goes to the Bluesfest festival as well, which is wonderful. I think the economic benefit of the festival is something that we need to acknowledge. It has become not only a music festival but also a tourist destination for a lot of people. It was in 1990, as was mentioned, that this festival began, and 6,000 people went through the gates in 1990. As the member for Richmond said, that has now grown to 140,000 people over five days. Those are easy figures to say, but I think that we need to acknowledge the work and the vision that that has taken. This is obviously a wonderful, iconic event. The event is held over the Easter long weekend. The Easter long weekend in our region has been renowned for bad weather occasionally, but that has certainly not deterred the people who keep going to the Bluesfest. And, as I said, there is a very wide spin-off of economic benefits. Obviously a lot of people fly into Ballina, in the federal electorate of Page, to go to this event, and they then stay all over the hinterland and in surrounding towns. As I have said to Peter, this is a great benefit of the festival—a wonderful thing that it does. Not everyone goes to the festival for four days, and the wider region has a lot to offer to visitors and tourists. The award was mentioned. I had a look this morning to see what awards this event had won, and I could have spent my whole five minutes talking about the awards the Bluesfest has won. It has won many tourism awards and awards across a whole range of categories too numerous to mention. The most recent of those—and it is not an insignificant award—was the Rolling Stone Award for the director, Peter Noble. This is not only an Australian event; it has become an international event. I have been a few times and not only the artists but many people who are there to appreciate the artists have travelled not only from every state of Australia but from countries all around the world. That is wonderful. A few artists were mentioned. Madam Deputy Speaker Griggs, I encourage you to come; I think that not only would you love the area, and I am sure you have been before, but you would very much appreciate the artists as well: John Mayer, Elvis Costello, Boz Scaggs—you would remember Boz Scaggs, Madam Deputy Speaker— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 220370 I do remember Boz Scaggs. Mr HOGAN 218019 and the Doobie Brothers were there. I did not get to see the Doobie Brothers, but we did go and see Aaron Neville. Aaron Neville is a real favourite of my wife. Aaron has aged, but I tell you what: he can still belt it out. There was Troy Cassar-Daley— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 220370 That's my husband's favourite. Mr HOGAN 218019 Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, Troy Cassar-Daley, who is from the Grafton community in the electorate of Page, was there performing as well, and he is a great Australian artist. In finishing—and I have mentioned this before—I will say that it takes great entrepreneurial spirit to do this. Peter had other partners at the start; he now owns the whole thing outright, having bought out the other partners. It takes great entrepreneurial spirit to do this—that whole have-a-go mentality that we love in this chamber and that we want to support. Peter has done a great job with this. He has epitomised that spirit and mentality. He has staff to manage and artists to coordinate. There is the whole logistics of it. It takes place at Tyagarah now, and the physicality of what he has built and manufactured there is wonderful. As was raised before, the dollar value is in the tens of millions—over $64 million—just in direct input to the local economy from this event. So I congratulate Peter for that. Lastly, I want to acknowledge that—while we are acknowledging Peter and his work on the blues festival—Peter has extended this, and now, at a different time of the year, in October we have the Boomerang Festival, a wonderful festival which celebrates Indigenous artists. That festival was new last year, and I think it will continue to grow in our community and be another wonderful cultural event in the wider Northern Rivers community. 13:03 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I became arts minister rather suddenly last year. It was a position that I had hoped to gain for a long time and then, all of a sudden, amidst a number of other movements that happened at the time, the position was vacant and I discovered that I was arts minister for Australia, only about a week before Bluesfest was to take place. I had been hearing about Bluesfest for a long time, from the member for Richmond and from my friends George Negus and Kirsty Cockburn, who had been encouraging me to attend. Immediately, though, there was the issue that the arts minister prior to me, Simon Crean, had accepted an invitation and I was asked to take it up. So, having said for a long time that I was too busy and could not make it, I found myself at my first Bluesfest last year. This is an extraordinary event—an absolutely extraordinary event. I think the story of its success is a story about the organisers and a story about the bands, but it is also a story about the crowd. It is a very special crowd at Bluesfest. There are not many music festivals where you will find people in such large numbers and—what has been for years—such an impeccably well-behaved crowd; this is not a crowd where you end up with problems, or bad media stories. It is an absolutely fantastic long weekend, and full credit has to go to the organisers for that. Peter Noble is an extraordinary Australian. What Peter has brought together in Bluesfest is through his own contacts, dating all the way back to his days as a bass player, as a band manager, and owning his own record label. And now, to be able to reach out—it would appear that there is no musical door that Peter Noble would be unable to open. Over the years, we have seen the most extraordinary mixture—from the greatest artists the world has known, to whoever might be extraordinarily popular on the day and some of the new, up-and-coming artists who are just finding their way through. I did not expect that there would be a day in my life when I would find myself attending a concert of KC and The Sunshine Band! Notwithstanding that, that moment happened for me this year—and KC was still up there, dancing away. There was a sense of fun throughout this whole festival. That really needs to be valued. Since that time, I have had the privilege to be able to declare my continued support and my continued attendance at Bluesfest, and also at the Boomerang Festival—I will say a bit more about the Boomerang Festival in a moment. Peter Noble is backed up by an extraordinary team: his partner' Annika Oman; Brendan Meek; Russell Mills; and Remy Tancred—and it is always a privilege to be met by people like that. I will not go through more names, because the more names you list, the deeper you go—you end up with an extraordinary list of people who come there to work because they believe in what happens there. And they believe passionately in the value of music itself. A lot is said, and quite rightly, about concerns for the future and about making sure we have enough Australian music. Increasingly, people are getting their music from offshore sources; people are listening to radio through means that do not of themselves have Australian content quotas. Part of making sure Australian music stays strong is to make sure that Australian music festivals remain strong. There will always be international headline artists—that is part of getting the crowd there. But this also helps provide the critical mass and critical audience for Australian bands—to make sure that cutting-edge Australian music continues to be part of the Australian story. The move to the Boomerang Festival is very important. The work that Rhoda Roberts has done as the curator of this festival provides an Indigenous music festival that is easy for large numbers of Australians to get to. People were watching Australian artists like Gurrumul and or international acts like the Wantok Sing Sing. We saw a beautiful feast of music at Boomerang. I certainly hope it receives the public support to be able to continue for a very long time. There is a good environmental story at the site. They have done great work with koalas. They have looked after them in a precious environmental site. Most importantly this is about making sure that music is part of Australian culture. Bluesfest plays a critical role in that. Debate adjourned. Bangladesh 4236 13:08 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That this House: (1) recognises the one year anniversary of the Rana Plaza building collapsed in Bangladesh, which killed more than 1,130 people in 2013; (2) notes the: (a) existence of the Bangladesh Accord, an independent agreement designed to make all garment factories in Bangladesh safe workplaces; and (b) Accord has been signed by over 150 apparel corporations from 20 countries in Europe, North America, Asia and Australia, two global trade unions, IndustriALL and UNI Global Union, and numerous Bangladeshi unions; and (3) calls on the remaining companies in Australia and abroad to sign and adhere to the spirit of the Accord. On 24 April last year, Rana Plaza, an eight-storey commercial building, collapsed in the Greater Dhaka Area in Bangladesh. The official death toll was 1,130, with approximately 2,515 people injured. I want to raise this tragic event as a matter of public importance, as part of the process of remembering and healing: to show the world has not forgotten and that those who died and those who were injured did not do so in vain. I want to speak to Australians of our obligations, moral and practical, to the people affected and to thousands like them—supporting the work of unionists like Michele O'Neil of the Textile Clothing & Footwear Union of Australia and civil society activists who I stood with at a solemn vigil in Melbourne on the date of the anniversary—a very moving occasion. The Rana Plaza collapse is the largest industrial disaster in history but, sadly, far from the only one in Bangladesh. Oxfam state that 1,800 people have died in factory fires and collapses in Bangladesh in the past 10 years. In this age of globalisation, it seems we have outsourced danger. It has become trite to acknowledge that some of the biggest, most expensive brands are manufactured in Bangladesh with the employees there earning about $A55 per month. But it is also worth noting that some cheaper brands utilise this labour. The core issue is not just about how and where our clothes are manufactured; it is about how we treat one another and what price we put on human life. It is hard not to feel powerless sometimes in the face of globalisation and such continued tragedy. After all, how many of us can really say we know the conditions of the factories where our clothes were made? But responsibility lies with all of us to be conscious and ethical consumers. To do this, we need conscious and ethical clothing companies and retailers. Determining if clothing has been made ethically is not, sadly, a straightforward process. Michele O'Neil made this point, saying that Australian companies need to be transparent about their supply chains. So the ABC asked companies for the location of their Bangladeshi suppliers and copies of their audit reports. None were forthcoming. According to Ms O'Neil, it is because these companies employ their own auditors to check their own factories. However, it would be a mistake to simply boycott clothing made in Bangladesh. Recently, Sumi Abedin was brought to Australia by Oxfam to speak about this issue. Sumi used to work in the Tarzeen garment factory in Bangladesh, which was destroyed by fire, and 112 of her coworkers died in this fire. Padlocked exit doors and barred windows left Sumi with the choice of jumping for her life or dying in the fire. Thankfully, she survived. Sumi's translator and Bangladeshi garment workers' rights activist Kalpona Akter reiterated this sentiment, stating: 'If you boycott, you're just hurting the people you're trying to help. What's happening in Bangladeshi factories is happening in garment markets all over the world: in South-East Asia, China and South America.' I am pleased that workers' voices are being heard and listened to. It is important that these workers are given the respect and indeed the agency they deserve as human beings. Unfortunately, in Bangladesh today it is almost impossible for workers to have a say about their working conditions directly. According to Human Rights Watch, in April 2012 Aminul Islam, a labour rights activist, was murdered after being arbitrarily detained and tortured by government security forces. His murder remains unsolved. Over a dozen labour rights leaders currently face criminal charges on a variety of spurious grounds. Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, is adamant about the role that organised labour has in ensuring these tragedies no longer occur. Had one or more of the Rana Plaza factories been unionised, workers could have refused to enter the building the day it collapsed. This tragedy shows that the right to organise a union in Bangladesh is not just a matter of fair wages—it is a matter of saving lives. I acknowledge that some progress has been made. More than 150 global brands and retailers have signed the historic Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh with the Industrial Global Union and UNI Global Union. The accord is a five-year legally binding agreement between international labour organisations, NGOs and retailers engaged in the textile industry to maintain minimum safety standards. Unfortunately, some Australian companies, including Just Group and Best and Less, still refuse to sign. I urge them to do so immediately and stand up for human rights. It just is not good enough. The accord goes some way to achieving a fairer and more just garment industry but we must do more, as individuals and as a society. This is more than just about how much products cost; this is about the cost to our collective humanity if we forget and do nothing. I choose to remember. I pledge to shop ethically and to do all I can to support workers in Bangladesh to organise collectively as well as to secure living wages and decent health and safety conditions. 13:13 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa Representing the biggest concentration of Bangladeshis in this country, I am very mindful of many issues in that country. Whilst it has made monumental gains in regard to its birth rate and is internationally renowned for its educational outcomes, it obviously is faced with a serious climate change issue which was focused upon last week by revelations of the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet. However, another issue that has come onto the agenda very much in the past year has been the question of industrial safety in the garment industry, which accounts for 80 per cent of Bangladesh's foreign earnings. The death of 1,100 people as a result of the activities of Sohel Rana—a businessman with significant political contacts who fled to the border and had to be detained by police—was a very serious international focus. I note, however, that despite that focus and despite the fact that companies have signed up to international accords—most particularly European rather than North American—the situation is still very serious. The New York University Centre for Business and Human Rights made this analysis of the situation in Bangladesh quite recently: The government of Bangladesh lacks the resources, administrative capacity and often the will to protect workers in garment factories. Local industry enjoys outsized influence in the country's politics, which impacts the establishment and enforcement of rigorous registration. It should be noted that one of the outcomes of the international outrage at the plaza destruction was that, for the first time, workers did not have to have permission from employers to actually join unions. If we have a look at some of the realities of trying to police this system, we see that, at the end of August, of 1,500 factories only 237 had union representatives. When we talk about union representation, we are not actually talking about a specific union structure on the site—that is any presence at all. In The Guardian of 25 April Sarah Butler, certainly presented a major expose with regard to that matter. Very recently Softex and Fame Knitting had to be closed down because of continuing safety issues, similar to what caused this catastrophic collapse in the first place. The comments of Rezwan Seilm, Softex chief executive, typify what we are facing. He said the closure was 'unfair to the workers' and that there were 'serious structural problems', and they continue in other factories—locks on fire exits, lack of sprinkler and fire alarms, chaotic cabling and overladen buildings. That is the reality of the country. At European behest, organised by the ILO and some international garment companies, we have had improvements with regard to the oversight of these plants. However, the situation continues to be very serious. The previous speaker alluded to the disappearance of one union leader. Recently shots were fired at demonstrators who still have not received the compensation of $645 per person that was promised. Some of them are still to receive it and as late as March and April people were fired upon. Bangladesh's cabinet has only now had some amendments to a 2005 labour act which, as I said earlier, seriously eroded union authority. Whilst there have been some notable activities by companies such as the Disney Corporation and European operators, it is still alarming to see that Benetton had a factory close down for their Olympus subsidiary, where workers as young as 13 and 16 were working and the conditions were totally unsafe. Once again, we have a very interesting comment from management. Their response to having 13- and 16-year-old workers in unsafe conditions was: 'At least they are not on the streets.' I agree with the mover of this motion that Australian consumers should be mindful of the realities of Australian companies not signing up to this. They are following rather disreputable organisations like Walmart in being resistant. The Just Group and Best and Less, which are leading companies in this country, have failed to act, failed to protect workers and basically are more concerned with getting product into this country with the exploitation of Bangladeshi workers. I fully agree with the motion as moved. 13:18 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I rise today in support of the motion. On 24 Apri1 2013 the Rana Plaza in Bangladesh collapsed, killing over 1,130 people and injuring more than 2,000. Sadly, many of the people who were killed or injured were young women. The tragedy highlighted the often appalling and unsafe conditions of textile workers in Bangladesh. It is fair to say that garment retailers around the world share a collective responsibility to make sure that these tragedies cannot happen in the future. They owe it to the families of those who lost their lives to take concrete actions to ensure this sort of thing cannot happen again. There is a price to pay for cheap fashion, and this tragedy reminds us that it is often low-paid and vulnerable workers in some of the poorest countries in the world who pay the price. The Bangladesh accord is an independent agreement designed to make all garment factories in Bangladesh safe workplaces. Signatories commit to ensuring that factory repairs are carried out and that workers at the factories continue to be paid a salary. The accord is a legally binding agreement that to date covers over 1,700 factories. It has been signed by over 175 apparel corporations from 20 countries in Europe, North America, Asia and Australia; two global trade unions, IndustriALL and UNI; and numerous Bangladeshi unions. Companies pay a fee based on the volume of product produced in Bangladesh garment factories and the money goes towards establishing a building standard for structural, fire and electrical safety in all garment factories in Bangladesh, as completed in 2014; structural, fire and electrical inspections of all factories covered by the accord; advising and monitoring brands and retailers of the effective implementation of remedial plans; and coordinating worker training programs, including health and safety committees and worker complaints mechanisms. More than 550 factories have been inspected already and the accord is well on its way to achieving its goal of 1,500 factory inspections by September 2014. Australian companies who have signed the agreement include the Cotton On Group, Forever New, K-Mart Australia, Pacific Brands, Pretty Girl Fashion Group Pty Ltd, Speciality Fashions Australia, Target Australia and Woolworths Australia. I want to commend those companies for supporting the accord and for supporting the people who work in the factories. Significantly, though, there are still a number of major garment retailers in Australia who are yet to sign the accord. Best and Less and the Just Group—which operates stores including Just Jeans, Jacqui E, Jay Jays, Portmans, Peter Alexander, Dotti and Smiggle—are yet to sign. I call on those Australian companies and those internationally who are yet to sign the accord to support this important agreement, to move to ensure that everybody who works to make their products is paid a living wage and is free to join a union and to collectively bargain in the workplace. We know that freedom of association is a human right that should be shared across the world, not just in rich countries. In light of all of this, it is extremely disappointing that the Abbott government has decided to cut all funding to Ethical Clothing Australia. I note that there is no speaker from the Abbott government in support of this motion today, which is regrettable. Ethical Clothing Australia has played an invaluable role in ensuring that home workers in Australia's garment industry are afforded fair and decent pay and conditions. Cutting this funding is just another demonstration of the government's attack on fairness and decency—a full-frontal attack on hardworking Australians and their families. The list of punitive measures is breathtaking. This budget does not just attack programs to support ethical clothing; the budget attacks the Australian way of life more generally. We have seen the introduction of the $7 GP tax that is going to fundamentally undermine Medicare. I might add it is a GP tax that I talked about during the Griffith by-election, and everyone from the Prime Minister to the foreign minister to my Liberal opponent wandered around town saying that Labor was just scaremongering about the GP tax. That is obviously not true. We have seen in this budget the introduction of that GP tax. We are also seeing cuts to the indexation of the pension and disability support payments, an increase in the pension age, the petrol tax, the $80 billion cuts to health and education, cuts to family payments, and cuts to the ABC and the SBS, despite the promise not to make any cuts. There are cuts to Indigenous affairs programs, an increase in the interest payable on student loans and, of course, the increase in fees for university courses. The list goes on when it comes to what this government has cut in its budget. At a time when around the world companies are signing up in support of fairness and decency, we have a government that is breaking its contract of fairness and decency with the Australian people. Debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 13 : 2 4 to 16 : 03 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 4240 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Richmond Electorate: Coal Seam Gas 4240 16:03 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise to speak about a great community victory on the North Coast of New South Wales on 15 May when the gas company Metgasco had its drilling licence suspended at Bentley near Lismore. I take this opportunity to thank all of those in the community who worked so hard to force the New South Wales state government to suspend this licence. We know it is only a suspension and we have to remain vigilant to ensure that all forms of unconventional gas mining do not occur in our area. We can only achieve this with the Northern Rivers being declared gas field free. We will keep this campaign going. We had such a variety of people involved in this community protest: farmers, families, grandparents, kids, locals, people from all around our region, people from right around the state, people from interstate and people from outside Australia. Everyone helped us. This is a victory for all those community workers who worked so hard; for those people who camped at Bentley; for the thousands who showed up at Bentley; for those who supported the Bentley blockade; for the people who wrote letters and signed petitions; for the people who marched in those rallies; for the people who declared their streets and communities gas field free; for all the people at Lock the Gate, including Ian Gaillard, Michael McNamara, Phil Laird; and for our local media, who highlighted the community's concerns, particularly the Byron Echo, the ABC at Lismore and the Northern Star. This victory is a community one. It is not one that the National Party have been trying to claim. They have been pushing CSG for years. People were upset when they, pathetically, tried to claim this victory as their own. The fact is, they ignored the concerns that had been brought to them by thousands of people over the years. Make no mistake: it was a community victory that brought about this outcome, because our community stood together. Many individuals—and I congratulate all of those individuals—and community groups worked so hard. This is your victory. You should own it. Congratulations for the great work that you did in protecting our beautiful north coast. Petition: Australian Broadcasting Corporation 4241 16:05 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon A couple of weeks ago, a small number of passionate constituents presented me with a petition to protect our ABC. This computer-generated petition tells me that 669 unnamed constituents want me to know that they love the ABC. I promised the group that I would mention their love in this chamber. Well, they can sign me up as the 670th constituent in my electorate who loves the ABC. Like many Australians, especially those in rural areas, I grew up with ABC programs, including Play School, Bellbird, Countdown and, one of my all-time favourites, Catweazel. In Alice Springs, the ABC was the only source of television until Imparja began in the 1980s. Like my coalition colleagues, I understand the significant relationship that the national broadcaster has with the Australian public. We are committed to maintaining the quality, the performance and the efficiency of both the ABC and the SBS. ABC and SBS receive nearly $1.4 billion a year from the Australian government, and the national broadcaster's efficiency study will ensure that taxpayers' funds are used as efficiently as possible, now and in the future. Victoria: Toolangi Forest 4241 16:06 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi On 24 April I travelled to Toolangi in the south of my electorate. I had been invited by local conservation groups to come and learn about the Toolangi Forest—a unique ecosystem and home to the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum, Victoria's faunal emblem. Toolangi Forest is a blink-and-you-miss-it kind of place, but this is what makes it so special. I was enchanted by the cool temperate rainforest located on the Wirrawilla Rainforest Walk. This rare ecosystem is hundreds of years old and home to beautiful myrtle beech trees. Local groups do a fantastic job in bringing school students to the forest to take part in education and conservation programs. Most of the forest is mountain ash and is, in fact, the most carbon-dense type of forest in the world. Local scientists predict that the remaining Toolangi Forest could provide billions of dollars of carbon permits in a future carbon trading system. However, the forest faces big challenges. Two-thirds of the forest was severely burnt in the 2009 fires. The remaining forest is unprotected, with intensive logging occurring across the forest. Most of the logs are turned to paper. I encourage all Victorians and Australians to take a trip to the Toolangi Forest. Explore and appreciate this environment while it remains. Increased public use and interest in the forest is the only way to ensure that the forest will grow and prosper into the future. Pearce Electorate: Riding for the Disabled Association 4242 16:08 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce On Saturday, 24 May 2014, I had the privilege of attending as the vice-patron at the opening ceremony of the new indoor arena for the Swan Valley branch of the Riding for the Disabled Association, a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to providing therapeutic and recreational benefits through equestrian activities to over 1,000 of the estimated 390,000 people in WA who have some level of disability. Through the construction of the Swan Valley indoor arena, this worthy service will now be able to be offered all year round to its members through a combination of fundraising via Movies by Burswood and a $55,000 grant offered by Lotterywest. Sufficient funds were raised and the arena was able to go through to the planning phase and then to the actual construction. I extend my thanks to these two organisations for facilitating this terrific outcome. Special thanks should also be extended to Frana Jones, who volunteered for the unenviable position of project manager and whose persistence allowed the project to succeed. Thanks also to Graham Betteridge, who overcame a problem with the building, when he volunteered his time and services as builder. Thanks should also be extended to all the patrons, parents, carers, volunteers and contractors who got behind the project and assisted in the arena's construction. Particular thanks go to Jan and Matthew Pavlinovich, who were instrumental in the process. From my previous dealings with them, I know that they make frequent, very substantial and very positive contributions to the community of Pearce. I am grateful for the ongoing work that they do. The day itself was a great success and gave me the opportunity to meet with some very inspiring people, such as Ella, one of the riders who benefits from the therapeutic services provided by the association. I commend the association and the work they do. (Time expired) Budget 4242 16:09 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand The Prime Minister has often claimed that all must fairly share in the cuts and tax increases imposed by this government in their recent budget, but last week's budget was not a Robin Hood budget but more a King John budget, robbing from the poor to feed the rich. Not content with going after our pensioners, our patients and our underprivileged, the Abbott government is set to target our nation's children. Under the National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early Childhood Education signed by the federal and Victorian Labor governments in 2008, four-year-olds currently receive 15 hours of free early childhood education. That is 15 hours with a tertiary-qualified childcare worker, interacting and developing with other children so they can get the best start in life. However, the federal government's share of this funding is only guaranteed until 2015 and the Abbott government is 'tight-lipped about renewing funding beyond this point'. I recently visited the Home Road Kindergarten in Newport in my electorate and spoke to staff about the impact that a funding cut of this kind would have on their kindergarten. They spoke to me about their fears of having to lay off staff, increase fees or cut the services they provide to our children. Ultimately, it is the parents and children who will pay for the Abbott government's cuts in this budget. As a parent with two children under three, I want nothing more for my children than that they get the best start in life. It is the same that all parents in my electorate want for their children. The Abbott government needs to explain to the parents and kindergartens in my electorate why it is worth funding accommodation for ballerinas but not our nation's disadvantaged kindergartens. The Abbott government needs to explain why the children of Melbourne's west do not deserve the best start in life. Casey Electorate: Hillcrest Fire Brigade 4243 16:11 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey It was my pleasure yesterday to attend the official opening of the Hillcrest fire station and Yarra Valley group headquarters in Woori Yallock on the Warburton Highway in the electorate of Casey. The Hillcrest brigade was formed some seven years ago when three of the local brigades—Don Valley, Launching Place and Woori Yallock—decided to merge under the motto of 'Three communities, two stations and one brigade'. Yesterday, after seven years of work, we saw the opening of their brand-new station and Yarra Valley group headquarters. I want to pay tribute to Captain Fiona Burns and the team for all the work that they have done in bringing about yesterday's opening and for all the work that they do on behalf of the community. Yesterday, it was also an opportunity to recognise some of their members who have been awarded national medals. I want to make mention of Rick Shaw, 38 years of service; Ken Burrows, 33 years of service; Tim Reid, 29 years of service; and Colin Warne, 26 years of service. Certificates were also presented to other members, including five-year certificates to Beverley Croke, Sue Jack, Pete Jenkin and Paul Livesay; a 15-year certificate to Brendan Tierney; and a 10-year medal to Alan Cousins; 20 years to Andrew Smith and John De Boer; 25 years to Colin Warne and Peter Colling. (Time expired) Kingston Electorate: Aldinga Football Club 4243 16:13 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston It was a big day for the Aldinga Football Club on Saturday. The Aldinga Football Club has over this season been struggling a little, and there was a huge push by the community and by the footy club and in particular Shane Crawford, who came down on Saturday to play for the Aldinga Sharks. The good news is that the Aldinga Sharks won. They won quite convincingly against O'Sullivan Beach. This was one of the biggest things, I think, the Aldinga Football Club has seen, with Sam Newman flying in on a helicopter. It was a big boost for the club and I was so pleased they won. I would like to mention O'Sullivan Beach because they were great sports about it and really put up a big fight. They are an important football club in the local area. The Southern Football League, which both of these clubs are part of, do a great job in ensuring young people in our community get the opportunity to play football and compete in the local area. They support not just the A-grade teams but also all the youngsters who are giving it a go. I would like to congratulate and thank all the volunteers at these clubs but also the wider Southern Football League for the work they do in ensuring kids can participate in football. And I thank the crowds for turning up and spurring on Aldinga. Let us hope their season is a little more successful. Run Townsville 4243 16:14 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert This Sunday is 1 June. It is not only the first day of winter but also the day when Townsville will be up very early and active. We will be out and running in Townsville. We will be participating in Run Townsville. This organisation is backed up by the Cotton On Foundation. We will be raising over $50,000 to refurbish the children's ward of the Townsville Hospital. There are two courses that we can do. We have been out and proud, very much so. We had Rachel McCully from the Townsville Fire and ex-international player and ex-Cowboy Dallas Johnson out there promoting what this run will be all about. It is all about inclusiveness, and we are expecting about 3,000 people to turn up. We will be starting on the Strand in the new redevelopment of Jezzine Barracks, a beautiful part of the world, this Sunday morning. Sam Pascoe and Amy Robinson from the Cotton On Foundation, who have actually come to Townsville to help stage this event, have made sure that they have been a great benefit to Townsville. Sam is a mum at school at the St Joseph's Catholic School on the Strand. I will be there and I will be doing the 12-kilometre course. Oh no! Sorry, it is this Sunday. I have to get a plane back to Canberra and I will not be able to do it. What I promise my Cotton On friends to do is wear this cap in Canberra when I do my 12 kilometres next week. I will post a selfie of when I finish. You can trust me. I am the member for Herbert and I will be in Run Townsville. Whittlesea and District Greek Elderly Citizens Club 4244 16:16 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin On Wednesday at lunchtime I attended the Whittlesea and District Greek Elderly Citizens Club. I was very pleased to be invited to that club to speak on the budget. I thank the members of the club, in particular Steve Williams and Tom Vlahos, for their invitation and for their very warm welcome. The Whittlesea and District Greek Elderly Citizens Club knows the value of fairness. It knows the importance of a society underpinned by a government that cares for the vulnerable and those who need our collective assistance. So they did not wait to hear from me to speak on the budget. They knew about the cruelty in the budget. They knew about the meanness of spirit evident in every word uttered by the Treasurer and about its impact on our communities in Melbourne's north. They had heard the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, and his reply. They wanted to know whether I would be standing with the member for Maribyrnong in standing up for our communities. They wanted to know, also: why would a government break so many promises to deliver so much harm to them, who are mostly pensioners, of course, and to their children? But, most importantly, they wanted to know about the prospects for their grandchildren in terms of the cruel cuts to youth support and to higher education. So I stand here, as I did in Thomastown last Wednesday, to say I am on the side of the members of the Whittlesea and District Greek Elderly Citizens Club, and I and my Labor colleagues will hold this government to account and stand up for an Australia that has a vision for the members of the club, their children and their grandchildren—an Australia that is big and bold, not one which is narrow and mean-spirited. Budget 4244 16:17 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Beside the fountain at Kibble Park in the heart of Gosford last week the Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, joined me and community leaders from the electorate of Robertson to discuss how the coalition is making our streets safer with the budget announcement of $680,000 to install more CCTV cameras on the Central Coast. This funding includes $240,000 for CCTV cameras for Gosford CBD, $200,000 for Woy Woy, Umina and Ettalong Beach on the peninsula, and funding for the Kariong underpass and skate park, Mitchell and Langford Drive shops, Arunta Avenue shops in Kariong and the Kincumber underpass. This important investment in my community will help support our local shopping strips and precincts by helping to reduce antisocial and unlawful behaviour. I would really like to thank members of the community who have joined with me in supporting the rollout of more CCTV cameras on the Central Coast. They include Brisbane local area command Superintendent Daniel Sullivan; Gosford City Mayor Lawrie McKinna; CEO Paul Anderson of Gosford City Council; Ali Vidler, Patrina March and Len Sergeant from Gosford Chamber of Commerce; Deborah Warwick and project manager Edwina Nikora from GBID, or Gosford Business Improvement District; and the Peninsula Chamber of Commerce President, Matthew Wales. Together our community advocates and local residents are working with the coalition to help make streets on the Central Coast safer, because we know that the best way to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour— (Time expired) Fraser Electorate: Charnwood 4245 16:19 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser As honourable members know, Canberra is the best city in Australia. It is the part of Australia which is the most egalitarian and the most generous. Canberrans are the most generous with their time and money. We are the sportiest. We have the highest rates of sporting participation. We are also the most equal part of Australia. So it is no great surprise to me—but it is, perhaps, to some other members of the House—that we have the best pharmacy in Australia. Capital Chemist Charnwood was decided to be the category winner—the No. 1 chemist in Australia. It was announced at the Australian Pharmacy Professional Conference on the Gold Coast. I would particularly like to congratulate managing partner Samantha Kourtis and her team for being a great pharmacy. To quote one of the judges of the competition, Victorian pharmacist Bill Scott: Like many of the pharmacies this year, Samantha saw that there were needs in the community that weren't being dealt with. For example, because Charnwood is an area where there is a considerable amount of diabetes and circulation problems, Samantha saw that there was a need for compression garments and wound dressings. He goes on to say: She deals with the local GPs, everybody in the area, and the pharmacy is known as the go to spot with anything to do with compression garments and wound management in the area. Charnwood is an area which has a great sense of pride. The Charny Carny, established by Michael Pilbrow and others in the area, has put a spring in the step of Charnwood residents. And it is a great source of pride to me to have the best pharmacy in the nation. Ryan Electorate: Mining 4245 16:21 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I wish to place on record my appreciation to the Minister for Industry, the Hon. Ian Macfarlane MP, for his recent visit to Ryan, where he got a quick snapshot of some of the exciting innovation happening in my electorate. CRC ORE and CRCMining hosted the minister at their facilities at Pinjarra Hills, where they are currently working on a water-powered drill which will revolutionise the way we can mine coal-seam gas. Basically, it will eliminate fracking. The drill head looks like a miniature missile with water jets at the front determining the direction, and water jets at the back propelling the drill through rock at four metres a minute. As funding for CRC ORE and CRCMining draws to a close, they are quickly moving towards being privately funded. They are already saving the mining industry millions of dollars each year with their improved tools and technology and their new perspective on making mining strategically more efficient and effective. The mining industries should be knocking at their doors in support. The minister also met with UQ College. This college provides students who would not usually have the opportunity to do so with the ability to complete tertiary preparation courses or bridging courses and so to then go on and study tertiary degrees. I thank the Minister for Industry for his support. Ride for Hope 4246 16:22 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston by leave—I rise today to congratulate all those who participated in Ride for Hope to raise funds to help children living in Adelaide but also living right around the globe. Ride for Hope is an initiative of Edge Church International in which participants could walk, run, cycle, motorcycle or drive along a route and raise money to help a number of organisations. The organisations that the fundraising went to include the Childhood Cancer Association, which provides critical emotional, practical and financial support for children living with cancer. Also, funds went to Transform Cambodia Life Centres, which aim to provide educational opportunities for children who otherwise would not have had those opportunities. Funds also went to World Vision, which helps over 20 million people each year through relief and development. This was a very successful event, and I was very privileged to be at the closing ceremony where I saw a sea of orange shirts, of people who had walked, ridden or driven, and who had, most importantly, done a lot of hard work in raising money for these important organisations. At the count on the day, people had raised $21,000—a great effort—with more money coming in. I would like to congratulate everyone involved and wish them all the best. This was the inaugural event, and it is only going to get bigger. Hasluck Electorate: Ms Jenna Woods 4246 16:24 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck Last Tuesday, I met an outstanding young woman from my electorate of Hasluck. Jenna Woods lives in Gosnells, down the southern end of my electorate, and, at 23 years old, is one of the youth members of the Parliament of Western Australia at this year's National Indigenous Youth Parliament. The National Indigenous Youth Parliament is an initiative of the Australian Electoral Commission and the Museum of Australian Democracy. Participants will take part in a two-day simulated parliament at Old Parliament House this weekend. They will introduce legislation to this simulated parliament and debate the legislation. Following this, they will provide a copy of the legislation to federal members of parliament in this House. In addition to the simulated parliament, participants will take part in a number of leadership workshops and meet with parliamentarians from across the nation. I am pleased to be speaking with participants at their dinner this Friday evening and discussing with them the life of a member of parliament. I am particularly proud of Jenna. When we were talking about this opportunity last week, it was clear that she demonstrates exceptional leadership and interpersonal skills. Programs such as the National Indigenous Youth Parliament are critical to building the capacity of our young future leaders, and I congratulate the organisers of such a worthy initiative. I wish all participants good luck with the week ahead and look forward to catching up with Jenna when she gets back to Perth. St Joseph's Community Centre 4247 16:25 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Yesterday I attended the blessing and official opening of the St Joseph's Community Centre at Paralowie in the city of Salisbury. It was carried out by Archbishop Philip Wilson with the support of Father Roderick O'Brien from the St Augustine Salisbury parish. The opening saw the realisation of a vision that originated in 1972 with the formation of the St Joseph's Association committee. The committee was formed in response to the social needs of a large Italian community that had settled in the Salisbury region. The committee had previously been using facilities at St Augustine's Catholic church and the St Augustine's Catholic primary school but had always hoped to one day have its own facilities. Subsequently land was bought at Paralowie and work on the new building began in 2005, much of the work being done by volunteers. The centre has now been in use for some time, and I have to say that it has proved to be a marvellous facility for the broader community and in particular with respect to all the services provided to the elderly throughout the Salisbury area. I congratulate the management committee, and I particularly acknowledge the many founding members who, sadly, did not live to see their vision realised. I thank the current management committee executive led by President Sam Gareffa, the tireless Sister Elda Sbarra, Grace Gareffa, Tony Polemeni, Grace Caruso, Tony Desteno, Joe Furina and Rocco Carpentieri for the work that they did in bringing the vision to fruition. Logan Country Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards 4247 16:26 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright The Logan Country Chamber of Commerce recently held their annual business excellence awards, designed to acknowledge and celebrate the success and achievements of small businesses in the Logan country community. This year there were over 100 businesses nominated and nearly 200 people who attended, which speaks volumes for the strength of our local small business in that community. I take this opportunity to congratulate the winners in their particular categories. The business of the year and excellence in trade services awards were awarded to CPM Landscaping, Tony and Kelly Cousins. The owners were taken by surprise when their business name was called out. Matt Lyons of Jimboomba Optometrists was awarded as the apprentice and trainee of the year. Jimboomba Trailers and Fabrication was given the award for excellence in innovation. Corey and Becky Baker from the Jimboomba Telstra store accepted the emerging business award. The Cusack Lane Veterinary Surgery was recognised for its customer service. Fitness Matters Jimboomba was awarded for excellence in marketing. The Logan Country branch of the Bendigo Bank were recognised for their generous community contributions. The Coffee Club Jimboomba took out the tourism and hospitality awards. Jimboomba Motorcycles accepted awards for excellence in retail. The award for excellence in professional services was awarded to Quintessential Dental. Also recognised on the night was local businessman John Kemp, who was acknowledged for decades of service to the Jimboomba business community with a life membership of the Logan Country Chamber of Commerce. Mr Kemp, who owns and operates Pump Service Industries, was unaware that he was to receive the accolade on the night and could not understand why his staff were so insistent— (Time expired) National Sorry Day 4248 16:28 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I rise to acknowledge National Sorry Day. In doing so, I would like to put on record my profound commitment to seeing that we remember all those children who were taken from their families. In doing so, I would also like to reflect upon the apology that was given by Prime Minister Rudd in 2008. I think that was one of the highlights of this parliament, where members all joined together to express their sorrow for what had happened in the past. Like many members in this House, I have family members who were affected by the stolen generation, and I think that as a parliament we must never forget the hurt and distress it caused to many people and the impact that it had on their lives. In 2000 I walked across the bridge along with 300,000 other Australians on the People's Walk for Reconciliation, when we all joined together to express our support for those people that had been taken from their families. On National Sorry Day it is so important for each and every one of us to remember and to reflect on this disaster in our history. Deakin Electorate: Taralye 4248 16:30 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Today I rise to acknowledge the work of an organisation in my electorate: Taralye, the oral language centre for deaf children in Blackburn. The pioneering centre was established in 1978 by the Advisory Council for Children with Impaired Hearing (Victoria), set up a decade earlier by families and early childhood education professionals. In the years since, Taralye has continued to be at the forefront of improvements in linguistic, educational and social outcomes for deaf children, both nationally and internationally. Just last week, I had the great privilege of attending the launch of the research findings of the Sound Connections project at Taralye, a collaboration of five listening and spoken language early intervention centres throughout Australia. The three-year project studied the language outcomes of more than 500 children, and the social inclusion outcomes of more than 100 children. I reiterate today what I said at last week's launch—that is, to congratulate everybody who worked with such dedication to see the project through to completion. In particular, I pay tribute to the families, educators and researchers, who are so dedicated to helping the children at Taralye reach their full potential. Finally, I wish to recognise Therese Kelly, who does an exceptional job as the Chief Executive Officer of Taralye. She will celebrate 10 years of service in July. Congratulations, Therese and everybody at Taralye. Makin Electorate: Roma Mitchell Secondary College 4248 16:31 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin by leave—Earlier this month I attended the Roma Mitchell Secondary College in the electorate of Makin, in the company of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Bill Shorten, and the shadow minister for education and member for Adelaide, Kate Ellis, whose electorate is very close to the Roma Mitchell Secondary College. The Roma Mitchell Secondary College is one of the new super schools created by the South Australian state government. It was opened a couple of years ago—I believe, in 2011. On the day we were able to talk to staff at the school and to see classroom activities relating to vocational training in a whole range of different vocational skills: in IT classes, in science classes and also one of the school's activities which relate to sports development. It was terrific to see firsthand what the new super school is doing and, more importantly, the different options which are available to the students at that school, bearing in mind that it is a school with children from a diverse range of family backgrounds and is very much multicultural. An important result of the day will be to ensure that those particular programs—which have been working so well under the leadership of the principal, Sandy Richardson—continue into the future. My fear is that they will not continue, as a result of the education cuts announced by the Abbott government in the budget earlier this month. I have real concerns that many of those good programs will not be able to be continued into the future. Flynn Electorate 4249 16:33 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn On Friday night I was delighted to attend the opening dinner of a very popular and unique event in my electorate of Flynn—the Old Station Fly-in and Heritage Show, held at Old Station in Raglan. The show was started back in 1989 by the late Mr George Creed. His wife, Leonie, was there on Friday night and she runs a wonderful show. There were around 500 people at the dinner on Friday night and the guest speaker was Matt Hall, a 42-year-old ex-RAAF combat fighter and Red Bull champion of the world. It was great to hear him speak. After that, the crowd broke up for a two-day event on Saturday and Sunday. Not only did we have all sorts of aerobatics with the aeroplanes but we also had heritage machinery on display, aircraft on display, truck shows, vintage tractor pulls, joy-flights for kids and adults, live bands on Saturday night, fashion parades and a licensed bar—everything you wanted was there. It is all thanks to Leonie Creed and her band of hardworking committee members, who have been doing this since 1989. It has become a very popular event in my electorate. They deserve the utmost praise. Duffy, Ms Lynne 4249 16:34 Ms HALL 83N Shortland by leave—On Monday last week I attended the funeral of Lynne Duffy. Lynne was a very active worker within our community. She was a mother, a grandmother and a great-grandmother and a person who constantly contributed to and supported our community. She was a member of the Labor Party and on many occasions she helped me in my campaigning and to be elected to this place. Each and every one of us has that special person that we work with. Lynne was one of those wonderful people. In April last year she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She had an operation and was in remission for a significant amount of time, but unfortunately six weeks ago the pancreatic cancer recurred and she succumbed to it last week. Lynne was a wonderful person who worked so very hard for so many people in so many different ways. I know that her family, her friends and her colleagues within the Australian Labor Party miss her and so will all those people that she associated with each and every day in Swansea in New South Wales. Budget 4249 16:36 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins Madam Deputy Speaker Andrews, it is wonderful to see you in the leadership position in that chair. All politics and no policy—Labor continues to spin a series of myths to score short-term political points to the detriment of all Australians. In his budget reply speech the Leader of the Opposition said: 'Gone, $50 billion from hospital funding to states.' This is untrue. It is another of Labor's economic myths. The budget does not cut funding for health. Overall annual health spending will increase by more than $10 billion over the next four years. Spending from 2017-18 will be put on a sustainable footing, but will continue to grow every year. The Labor Party currently have an online petition to save Medicare, as they allege it is under attack by the government. This also is untrue; it is another Labor myth. Ten years ago the Commonwealth was spending $8 billion a year on Medicare; today it is spending $20 billion. The modest co-payment will ensure that Medicare is sustainable for future generations. In fact, it is the coalition, not the Labor Party, that is seeking to save Medicare. Labor members constantly refer to pension cuts—another myth. The pension will not change during this term of parliament. It will continue to increase twice a year, as it always has. Even after the next election, pensions will continue to increase every year; however, they will continue to do so in line with the cost of living, not male average weekly earnings. The Labor Party are constantly full of misdirection and myth. They need to act in the national interest and in the best interest of all Australians. (Time expired) Budget 4250 16:38 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Bendigo's welfare agencies and not-for-profit sector are speaking out against the harsh cuts in Tony Abbott's first budget. Among those speaking out is Bendigo Community Health Services Chief Executive Officer, Kim Sykes, who last week in a meeting of Bendigo welfare agencies said, 'There needs to be a rethink of any policy that further embeds disadvantage.' She went on to say: 'We seem to be driving this idea that if you're poor, or if you're without a job, if you're struggling, it must be your fault and your government will leave you on your own. We need to have a decent and civil society. We cannot allow society to be built around a concept that does not help those most vulnerable and most in need.' I agree with Kim. Kim raised her concerns regarding the federal budget during a meeting with Bendigo welfare groups last week. These groups are outraged and upset by the attacks this government has made on the people they spend every day working to care for and working to ensure are able to make ends meet. Included in this meeting of the Bendigo welfare agencies were Bendigo Community Health Services, the Salvation Army and Haven; Home, Safe as well as some Anglican and a number of other groups. They were there to support those most in need. I call on the government to listen to Kim's concerns and to come to Bendigo to meet with our welfare agencies. It is time that the government found the time to talk to those on the front line about how its budget is putting the poorest in our community— (Time expired) Australian Red Cross 4250 16:39 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Madam Deputy Speaker Andrews, I am sure you would be aware, as you would be very in tune with your community, that this year is the 100th anniversary of the Red Cross. Last Friday, I had the pleasure of helping to celebrate, with my community, this milestone at the Red Cross tea rooms in Keen Street, Lismore. As most people here would know, the Red Cross was established in 1914, at the outbreak of World War I. Its symbol is synonymous with doing good and helping people in need. I acknowledge the Lismore Branch President, Lynne Fleisch, and all the other hardworking volunteers in our community for all that they do. We would be a poorer community without them. They do lots of work in blood donation. A number of weeks ago, it was especially pleasing for me to visit their tea rooms to announce a couple of grants from the federal government. We are helping them fund three programs: Telecross, TeleCHAT and MATES. These programs are to help Red Cross people and their volunteers to ensure that our elderly residents receive physical and social support that will enable them to continue living in their homes. Some of these programs just give them a call to see how they are going and to make sure that they are okay. Other parts of this program involve volunteers visiting elderly residents in their homes and having a cup of tea with them. These are good programs to help elderly people stay at home for as long as they can. I commend the Red Cross. Happy 100th birthday to a wonderful institution. Budget 4251 16:41 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo by leave—I rise again to highlight the savage cuts that the Abbott government's budget will have on the Bendigo community. I now wish to speak about the cuts to Bendigo Health. Bendigo Health is the major provider of health services in the Bendigo electorate. It includes the Bendigo Base Hospital. Because of this budget and what this government has done, $25 million will be cut from the Bendigo hospital over the next five years. This includes $3.2 million next year and half million dollars right now. The problem that we have in Bendigo is that when the Prime Minister stood at the front of the Bendigo hospital he did not let them in on the secret. He did not tell the truth. He did not say that he would break his promise of 'no cuts to health care'. He did not tell the CEO to think twice about the budget for next year, because when he became Prime Minister he would be cutting health. Last week, at the front of the hospital, I met with ambos and nurses. They are concerned about what these cuts will do to the hospital. They are concerned that there will be bed closures. They are concerned that there will be job cuts. They are concerned about something called 'ramping'. For those in other states who do not know about the ambo crisis in Bendigo, when we do not have enough hospital beds in Victoria the ambulances are ramped up. The ambos are concerned—and I share their concern—that, because of these funding cuts, ramping will increase and more patients will be left out in the cold. Petition: Zone Allowance 4251 16:44 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I table a petition from the residents of Northern Australia. This petition has 4,146 signatures and has been found to be in order by the Standing Committee on Petitions. The petition calls on the Australian government to amend the zone allowance to make zone A $10,000 per taxable year, with other zones adjusted accordingly, and that the zone allowance be indexed on an annual basis. The petitioners also request that the House ensure that only those people who live in these zone areas are beneficiaries of this allowance. I congratulate the Mount Isa City Council for their strong level of advocacy on this issue. As the Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, I have to say that zone tax allowances and special economic zones have come up consistently in submissions during the public hearings. The zone offset has been around since 1981 but the failure to index it means that it is not fulfilling its purpose of enticing and retaining population growth in regional and remote areas. In addition, fly-in fly-out workers in regional areas are able to receive this zone tax concession. FIFO workers play no active role in these local communities and, therefore, it is a valid argument that they should not be eligible. I encourage further consideration of this matter. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of the residents of Northern Australia draws to the attention of the House the inadequate zone allowance for northern Australia. We therefore ask the House to: Amend the zone allowance to make Zone A $10,000 per taxable year with the other zones adjusted accordingly and that the zone allowance be indexed on an annual basis.  We also humbly request that the House ensure only those people who live in these zone areas be beneficiaries of this allowance. from 4146 citizens Petition received. Makin Electorate: Salisbury Athletics Club 4252 16:44 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin by leave—A couple of weeks ago I attended the annual general meeting and presentation night of the Salisbury Athletics Club. This club sources its athletes from the Salisbury and Salisbury East little athletics centres. I commend the club not only because over the years it has produced some of South Australia's and indeed Australia' best track and field athletes, including hammer thrower Sean Carlin, who was a Commonwealth Games gold medallist, but also because of the crop of young athletes that are currently going through the club. I heard about their performances, achievements and records on the night that they had set over the past season. They truly need to be commended for their performance to date. I also want to commend the management committee which, under very difficult circumstances, has managed to maintain the club in a very sound position financially and also in an administratively sound position where there is not only the president and the committee members but a whole range of different support programs and facilities provided by the club on behalf of its members, including for athletes in the Mildura area. Mildura is in fact across the border in Victoria. Their own state association did not want to give them the support that they quite properly deserved, but the South Australian club was prepared to do so because they value and support athletes not only in their own region but right across the state. Once again, I commend all involved in that club for their years of service to the local community. Perth Zoo 4252 16:46 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Madam Deputy Speaker Andrews, I too add my congratulations and it is a pleasure to see you in the new position you have taken up. I am sure you will bring gravitas and the respect that it deserves to that position. In April this year I visited the Perth Zoo, which is in my electorate and an icon of the Perth environs for many years—over a century now. It is probably about a minute from my place to the Perth Zoo in the beautiful leafy green suburb of South Perth and it serves the community well. On this particular day I visited with the Hon. Donna Faragher MLC, who was representing the minister for the environment, Albert Jacob, from the Western Australian government. It was a morning tea to commemorate the opening of the new orangutan Jungle School exhibit. About 60 people arrived to find a beautiful early morning breakfast set up with scones, coffee and tea, and to see the changes that had been made to the orangutans' compound. About 80 per cent of orangutan habitat around the world has been lost to logging and permanent agricultural conversion, in particular oil palm plantations. Orangutans are also shot for taking food from plantations and poached for the illegal pet trade. The Perth Zoo has bred 29 orangutans since 1970 and are doing a fantastic job in a breeding program that is returning orangutans back to their natural habitat. Congratulations to them. Budget 4253 16:47 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo by leave—I have a lot to say today about the budget and the attacks it will make on people in my local community. Right now I wish to speak about the cuts to education. Last week my state colleague Maree Edwards and I were part of the Castlemaine Secondary College Education Week discussion about the future of education. It was a timely discussion because both of us at the state and federal level had bad news for the local community when it came to school funding. Under the Gonski reforms, the Castlemaine Secondary College, like the Kyneton Secondary College and several in my electorate, would have received a significant increase in funding to help make sure that those students got the education that they deserved. Yet in this budget that we saw handed down by the Abbott government they have broken that promise and funding will be less. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 220370 According to standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. BILLS 4253 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-2014 4253

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-2014

Second Reading 4253 16:49 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Andrews. It is nice to see you in that chair as opposed to in a helicopter. I would like to be in this place, like any member of parliament, and happily give away money. No member of parliament really comes to the House and wants to be the person who has to say no. Ms Hall interjecting— Mr BROAD 30379 Let me continue. But my curse, I suppose, is that I do understand economics and I understand that you actually have to have a strong economy in order to attract and be able to build a great society. Ms Hall interjecting— Mr BROAD 30379 In having a strong economy, you have to be able to afford a certain number of things, and how you do it is quite challenging. I hear someone across the chamber here interjecting, but what I can say is this: we need to find the balance between what we invest in and what we spend, and this has been the challenge in this budget. In this budget, we have found some difficult choices. It needs to be said that for a very long time we have not adjusted the structural flaws in the budget. We have been spending more as a country than we have been getting in in income tax, and that leaves us with two choices. It leaves us with the choice of putting taxes up or finding some savings. We had to find that balance. In working through that balance, there have been some challenges. But I believe we have actually met the challenge very well. Ms Hall interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230886 Order! The member will be heard in silence. Mr BROAD 30379 The challenge is to ensure that businesses can continue to function. Across my electorate, we could have fallen in the trap. We could have removed the diesel fuel rebate. We could have not invested in roads. But instead we have chosen to keep the diesel fuel rebate, which is a recognition of agricultural productivity, and we have also chosen to invest in roads. I hark back to a great cartoon series that I used to watch when I was a child, and that was The Simpsons. One time Homer Simpson ran for mayor by saying, 'Can't somebody else do it?' As I said at the start, we would love to turn up to this place and give away money, but what defines us as a government compared to the previous government is that we are prepared to make the difficult choices. When Homer Simpson ran for mayor with his slogan of 'Can't somebody else do it?' that very much reflects the budget-in-reply speech that we saw from Bill Shorten, talking about us being mean, talking about us being harsh. But what he essentially was saying was, 'Can't somebody else do it?' And that is us. We have been handed the hard task of running the country and deciding what the hard decisions are. There have been a lot of lies out there and a lot of discussion out there in the public discourse. Winston Churchill once said, 'A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.' Dr Leigh BU8 I preferred it when you quoted Simpson! Mr BROAD 30379 No, you will learn something from Churchill, because Churchill was a man—I kid you not—who had the strength of his convictions to make the tough call when the tough call had to be made. And this is a tough call that had to be made. In our current deficit, you will notice that we still have $49.9 billion of loss this year. Our projections next year are $29.8 billion, and even by 2017-18 we will see a deficit of $2.8 billion. So even then we are still only closing the gap, but the tough calls need to be made. We have made some tough calls, but we have also invested very much in our future. I got emails all last week saying what we can and cannot do, and many of those emails would have us go down the same way as the Argentinian economy, where they put in huge disincentives for people to earn. We have not done that. We have not made that mistake. We have actually invested in building capacity. Cutting company tax rates has been fantastic. That will mean that a small business in my electorate will put on an extra apprentice, and that is what we have to do. If we can get one extra person— Ms Hall interjecting— Mr BROAD 30379 Well, you should listen because you are going to learn something. If you can put on one extra person, that is an extra job in a country community. I did an apprenticeship, and a first-year apprenticeship is very tough to live on. In fact, if you are on a first-year wage, on $200 a week, it is quite a struggle. We have recognised this. We are actually the party for the worker, and we have recognised this. We have given a help scheme for apprentices. I know that as a first-year apprentice it was a very big deal for me to be able to buy the tyres on my car, but with a help scheme there is real recognition of this. For the first time, students who study at Longerenong agricultural college or at SuniTAFE will be able to access a help scheme. This has been an instrumental thing that we have campaigned for for a very long time—a recognition that rural trades are essential to growing our economy and growing our wealth. We have expanded the research and development in agriculture by $100 million. We have also invested in our roads—our first mile of road. Did you know that the average truck now weighs 60 tonnes? We have to be able to get down that country road. We have added another $350 million for Roads to Recovery and another $300 million overall for Bridges to Recovery. This has been a great investment and real recognition that investing in roads is going to be key. One of the tough decisions has been to put an excise on fuel and to index that excise. It is easy for the Labor opposition to sit back and say, 'That's a broken promise.' But we are linking the excise to road infrastructure. My electorate makes up one-third of the state of Victoria, and there are a lot of country roads. The people in my electorate say to me that they want to be able to make a phone call and they want to be able to drive on a country road. For a very long time we have seen not enough investment in country roads. It has been the coalition, which championed the Roads to Recovery policy, that has boosted that. That is recognition of the fact that boosting our investment in infrastructure lets us enhance our export capacity, which increases our wealth. Even out of my electorate, there is $5.3 billion of economic activity. I would say that there are not many electorates across Australia that have that level of economic activity. We continue to invest in looking after our land. There is $525 million for the Green Army Program. I am going to have three Green Army projects in my electorate and I am going to try to get some more. The thing I like about the Green Army Program is that it gets young men and women aged 17 to 25 outdoors, breathing the fresh country air and getting involved in hands-on environmental management. This is how you actually move people away from being armchair environmentalists, of which we have seen too many, to being people who have a passion and an affinity for looking after the land. Not only will those people undertaking Green Army projects be doing something of value that will lift their self-esteem; they will also be getting some skills and doing some good environmental work that will help the region. We have $342 million in the Community Development Grants Program. That is money that will go into our communities to help build small infrastructure. Also part of the budget is the National Stronger Regions Fund. That is $1 billion that will be spent right across Australia to build those small projects that are very important to people. For my electorate in the budget there is also an additional 3,000 places for the Clontarf Foundation. I met with some of these guys last week. They are young Aboriginal men who use sport as a motivation for getting them back to school and getting them back into learning. One of the key factors about this budget is that, unlike the previous government, which was not prepared to put some tough love into unemployment benefits and in driving people to work, we have introduced an earn or learn program. The earn or learn program will not have people living on $2 noodles for six months, as those opposite would have us believe; it will have some very good programs that will help people get a job. That is what we want. Mr Deputy Speaker Randall—I think that is the right title. It sounds very regal for you, doesn't it? We want to see people get a job. Getting a job builds your self-esteem. Getting a job builds your self-worth. We do not want people to see themselves as unemployed. We want to see them as employable and looking for work. That is something we need to do right across Australia. In my electorate there are jobs, and a lot of them are currently being filled by Irish and German backpackers. We want our young Australians to get involved in the workforce. That does not mean you start off in the job that you always want. I never started off in the job I always wanted, and I am not sure I am in the job I always wanted now, but here I am. The point is— Dr Leigh interjecting— Mr BROAD 30379 You could try. I think you had a good go but did not quite—I think you polled 17 per cent. Across my electorate we want to have people who are active and take a job. That is going to be very critical, Mr Deputy Speaker Randall. Is that the correct title? The DEPUTY SPEAKER PK6 Correct. Mr BROAD 30379 Even the senior Australians in my electorate can see the value of what we are doing with the GP co-payment. I have talked to pensioners, and whilst they do not particularly like it they know there is value in their covering some of the hard yards that are ahead, particularly when you tell them that it is going to go into the Medical Research Future Fund. This is a fund that could have huge benefits for Australia, not only in the way it could solve some illnesses that we need research into. One thing I have seen when I have studied extensively overseas is that medical research becomes something that links very much our universities, and if we can do this right then we can actually have some of our top research universities accessing some of these funds and driving not only training but also the research and the cures for the next century. For people who are over 50, being unemployed is a big challenge. I want to make sure that those people in my electorate are very aware that, if they have been unemployed for six months, we are going to introduce a program that is going to help them get a job. There is nothing that does more for an older person's self-esteem than to see that they are still of value, that they can still get a job and that they can still contribute to the Australian economy and to their own pocket. We are introducing $10,000 over 24 months to help senior Australians get jobs. If you have been on welfare for six months or more, an employer will work with you and get $10,000 over 24 months to employ you. So there is a length of tenure for which you are going to have to stay there—for which they are going to have to keep you on. That measure, I think, will be very well received. If you do have the chance—and many of you are very busy workers, I understand, as members of parliament—the Queen's Birthday long weekend is a good time to go on a road trip. One of the things that is great about the electorate of Mallee is that it has such fantastic places to visit. We have the Grampians, where you can have a kangaroo bounce up right to your front step. We have the Murray River, where you can take a houseboat. We want to drive tourism dollars in the Grampians. We want to drive tourism dollars along the Murray River. We understand that tourism is a very important part of the Australian economy. So the budget has a $43 million Tourism Demand-Driver Infrastructure Program, with small expenditures right across Australia that will make sure that people get out and experience Australia. I think this is another a great part of this budget. We have not shirked our responsibility. When I have been out talking to people across my electorate, they are not saying, 'Woe is me!' What they are saying, without any political spin, is: 'We know that we have been living beyond our means for too long. We are not buying the line that there is no budget emergency. We are not buying the line that the Labor government should have continued the way it had been going for five years previously.' People are telling me that the budget is tough but fair. They are prepared to wear some of the cuts because they know that if they can walk with us we can walk through a few difficult years and there will be light on the other side. We have done it before. Unfortunately, we have been elected to have to do it again. But it is the tough decisions that define members of parliament, not just turning up and whingeing and throwing away money like a drunken sailor. We are prepared to make those tough decisions, and that is something that will define this government. 17:02 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser Whether you ask parents, pensioners or conservative premiers, it is pretty clear that this budget is deeply unpopular—perhaps the most unpopular budget since polling began. One of the reasons for this is that it breaks so many promises: pledges of no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions, no cuts to the ABC and no new taxes are smashed like plates at a Greek wedding. Broken too is the pledge not to cut more than 12,000 public servants, a broken promise which falls particularly hard on my electorate, and the promise not to make further cuts to foreign aid: now Australia will see itself doing less vaccination and building fewer sanitary projects—saving fewer lives. It appears that, when Mr Abbott was sermonising for the previous three years about the need for politicians to keep their word, he was referring to everyone but himself. The other reason that people are angry about this budget is that it does not reduce the deficit. Let us not compare Hockey 2013 with Hockey 2014. Let us make the only fair comparison. As the Charter of Budget Honesty sets out, the fair comparison is with today's budget and the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, independently prepared by the secretaries of Treasury and Finance during the caretaker period. By that comparison, this budget has a higher deficit this year, a higher deficit next year and a higher deficit across the forwards. The PEFO had us returning to surplus in 2016-17; this budget has us returning to surplus in 2017-18. The Treasurer's hyperbole about Australia's deficit levels are out of touch with the international reality, where Australia's debt levels are relatively low. But if the Treasurer were to care about the level of Australia's debt and deficits, he does himself no favours by bringing down a budget which increases them. But the biggest reason that this budget sent shivers through the community is that it fails the fair go test. So many people in my community and other communities around Australia are asking about the budget, 'How will it make my life harder?' A single parent recently contacted me. She has worked hard all her life supporting herself and her two boys and was to be made redundant this year. As the redundancy date loomed closer she did her best to secure another job to guard against unemployment and to avoid disadvantaging her two boys, who rely on her income. But she struggled. 'I went for interview after interview,' she said. No-one was willing to give her a go. 'Our government are much the same,' she reflected. 'They look after those who are capable and successful and they leave the rest behind.' An age pensioner got in touch. She told me about her life of contribution to the nation, her four working children and her six grandchildren. Throughout her life she has done her best, paying her taxes and raising a family, but now she tells me she feels like a burden on society. She said: 'I am one of those pensioners whose sole income is the pension—no superannuation payments, nothing. I feel sad, depressed and scared for my ability to pay my way when all the cuts start.' And yet this is a budget which, while it takes away from pensioners, gives to those at the top of the distribution. You heard nothing on budget night about the $50,000 for millionaires parental leave scheme. It is a scheme I know the member for Mitchell has commented on in the past, and he has very astutely pointed to the shortcomings in his speech. I certainly do not want to traduce your impartiality, Deputy Speaker, but when he is in the House the member for Mitchell is a brave speaker on the evident flaws in paid parental leave. I commend him for so doing. While I am quoting members of the other side of the House it is apposite to mention that today was an opportunity for the Minister for Education to quote from an excellent book, if I do say so: Battlers and Billionaires! I am very happy to continue in the vein that the education minister pursued in question time in making very clear that this is a budget for billionaires, not a budget for battlers. For six years the non-concessional superannuation cap has stayed at $150,000. In this budget it was raised to $180,000. Let us think for a moment about who benefits from the $40 million of new expenditure over the forwards. Who is putting more than $150,000 a year into superannuation? Say you put 15 per cent of your income into superannuation—a relatively high contribution. That would mean you would need to have more than $1 million income every year to benefit from this measure. So the talk of heavy lifting rings hollow in a budget which puts aside $40 million for people with seven-figure incomes to benefit and spends $50,000 on the most affluent families to have children. We have, of course, some modelling that has been done on that. How good is the modelling, you would have to ask? I do not want to verify the authority of the modelling; let me go directly to the Prime Minister, who said on 17 August 2010 that NATSEM is 'the most reputable and authoritative modelling organisation in Australia'. So what does NATSEM, the Prime Minister's No. 1 modelling firm, say about this budget? The analysis carried out by Ben Phillips shows very clearly the impact on households in the budget. We will go to 2017-18 and the results of the STINMOD model in that year show that, for couples with children, those in the bottom quintile are losing 6.6 per cent of their disposable income—on average nearly a $3,000 annual hit—while those in the top quintile are getting a benefit of 0.3 per cent, or about $500. Let me also go to single parents. Single parents in the bottom quintile are losing 11 per cent of their income—nearly $4,000 a year. Overall, the budget is clearly redistributive from the bottom to the top. Those in the bottom quintile in 2017-18 are losing 2.2 per cent of their income and those in the top quintile are gaining 0.2 per cent of their income. So, on average, there is $991 taken away from the bottom quintile and $316 given to the top quintile. What is the context in which this is being done? It is being done at a time in which we have had an unprecedented rise in inequality. Over the past generation, earnings for the top 10 per cent have risen three times as fast as earnings for the bottom 10 per cent. The top one per cent income share has doubled. The top 0.1 per cent income share has tripled. The richest three Australians, who could fit in the back seat of a limousine, have more wealth than the poorest one million Australians, which is about the population of Adelaide. Yet this is a budget which seems apparently to have been framed in the expectation that inequality in Australia was falling rather than rising. It is the kind of budget you might expect from a Prime Minister of whom Peter Costello once wrote: He used to tell me proudly that he had learned all of his economics at the feet of Bob Santamaria. I was horrified. I had the pleasure last week of visiting the youth and family centre in Devonport with Senator Urquhart and speaking to some of the youth workers there. We were speaking about the overall impact of the budget, but one of the measures that concerns them in particular is the impact on twentysomething young people in Tasmania who lose their job and have to wait six months to get unemployment benefits. There is a deep concern among these youth workers, who had between them decades of experience, that this will lead to an exacerbation of mental illness and to people sleeping rough in their cars if they have them or on the streets if they do not. It could lead people to turn to crime as a way of simply feeding themselves. The philosophy that underpins the six-month waiting time to receive unemployment benefits is the notion that unemployment is a personal failing. It is not the fault of people in the north-west of Tasmania that jobs are scarce in that part of Australia. The reason that one in 10 people who want a job cannot find one in north-west Tasmania is not that there has been an outpouring of laziness or a lack of willingness to work; it is the structural factors—the decline of the manufacturing and forestry sectors in Tasmania, which has led to this situation. To punish Tasmanians for that is cruel and unnecessary in the extreme. Tasmania, having one of the lowest income levels in the country, will be particularly hard hit by this budget. The burden of the budget will also fall heavily upon National Party electorates, whose incomes are on average lower than the rest of Australia. So it is quite surprising to me that members of the National Party are lining up to support a budget which is hurting their electors. Of course, as you transfer resources from the poor to the rich, you effectively transfer resources from spenders to savers. We know this because, if we look at the spending rates by quintile, a recent Reserve Bank working paper estimated that low-income families spend all of their income while high-income families save a quarter of their income. The effect of moving $10 billion from the bottom quintile to the top quintile is you are going to decrease spending by $2½ billion. That money is going to go into savings, and you would expect to see a hit on retail trade, and that is precisely what we have seen. A report in the Financial Review last Friday noted that retail sales fell 5.1 per cent in the seven days after the budget, following a 4.6 per cent drop in the week beforehand according to the Australian Retail Index. The ANZ-Roy Morgan consumer confidence indicator recorded a 3.2 per cent fall in the week ending 18 May, taking the decline in the measure to 14 per cent over the past four weeks. That is the most rapid drop in that index since the global financial crisis. The Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer confidence survey has dropped to 92.9, which is nearly a three-year low. Confidence has fallen among Labor voters, where the index is a lousy 74.9. I can tell you a secret, Deputy Speaker, retailers do not care whether the money is coming out of the wallets of Labor voters or coalition voters. So, if you tank the consumer confidence of Labor voters, you will hurt the economy. We have a Treasurer, who is really a shadow Treasurer in drag, trash-talking the economy at every opportunity. It is showing up not just in the retail sales numbers, not just in the two consumer confidence indicators I have mentioned, but also in a survey of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Fewer than one in three company directors now believes the federal government is having a positive impact on their business decisions and consumer confidence. As it turns out, only eight per cent expressed support for the government's proposed unfair Paid Parental Leave scheme at last year's election. The member for Mitchell is with 92 per cent of company directors—a better place to be than both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, who are with just eight per cent of company directors. The result of this is that we have a government which is not speaking proudly about the economy on the national stage. When the Prime Minister went to Davos he did not speak about the two decades of uninterrupted growth and the bipartisan reforms which have underpinned that. Instead he trash-talked his own nation on the world stage. As political scientist Judith Brett wrote recently, the government is behaving like 'a bunch of winners taking it out on the losers'. She said: 'It all feels a bit like student politics in its short-term point scoring, its payback and its intense personal antagonisms.' The Abbott-Hockey budget not only breaks promises and fails to address the deficit; it is deeply unfair and, because of that, it is hurting consumer confidence. The impact of this will continue to be felt until the Prime Minister and the Treasurer step out of the role of attacking the economy and step into the role of supporting the economy—recognising that although, in government, they have made Australian debt levels worse, they remain relatively low by international standards. Maybe talking about a budget emergency is the member for North Sydney's way of boosting his numbers in the coalition party room, but it is having a detrimental effect on economic confidence. Unnecessary talk of emergencies is one of the factors that are driving down retail sales and hurting consumer confidence. This government should govern for all Australians, not pursue measures which in effect take from the most vulnerable to give to the most affluent. This is an unfair budget and Australia can do better. (Time expired) 17:18 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I rise to speak on these appropriation bills which will start to set the course to get Australia back into a good position. Oh for the days of being elected as a new government in 2007 facing the budget that they inherited! Here we are as an incoming government that has been given a financial mess—not one we created—to clean up. Listening to lectures by the economic academics on the other side on how wrong this budget is defies belief. To think that they actually put these thoughts into books—I am worried about the education of young people who may pick them up and actually believe in them! It is well known and well documented that, when Labor came to power, they inherited a $20 billion surplus, they inherited cash in the bank. What have we received? It is deja vu 1996—budget black holes, debt. I want to remind people of their track record while they were in power. In 2008-09 they promised a $21.7 billion surplus. It would not have been too hard considering the fact that they had already inherited a $20 billion surplus and $50 billion in the bank. But what did they deliver? A $27 billion deficit. In fact, that is a $48.7 billion turnaround in just one year. To show you the enormity of that, in 1996, when we were elected, the whole of the deficit was only $96 billion. In 2009-10, they promised a $57.6 billion deficit, so perhaps they were starting to speak about the true Labor ways of deficit, and still only delivered a $54.5 billion deficit. They improved their bottom line by $3.1 billion. In 2010-11, they promised a $40.8 billion deficit and blew that out by $6.7 billion to a $47.5 billion deficit. In 2011-12, they promised a $22.6 billion deficit and delivered a $43.4 billion deficit, a blow-out of $20.8 billion. And the cracker is 2012-13, from these great economic minds. They promised the Australian people a $1.5 billion surplus. They had the economy under control; they knew what they were doing; the GFC had finished. Instead, what did they deliver? They delivered an $18.8 billion deficit, a turnaround of $20.3 billion. So to stand in this House and listen to Labor lecture the coalition on economic management defies belief. In fact, they could not even lie straight in bed if they intended to. They made all these promises and all these inferences. They knew what they were doing. The thing that really galls me is that they based everything on the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis did not run for six or seven years; in fact, the main part occurred in northern Europe and the US, in the Northern Hemisphere, and the effect of that was only over months. But this Labor Party, when in government, used it as the excuse to spend, spend, spend. It is as though they believed in Mark Latham's magic pudding. As I said right at the very outset, we did not create this economic mess, but we have been charged with the responsibility to address it and to fix it. Wishful thinking will not fix the problem. No amount of rhetoric will address the issue. Only by addressing the core fundamentals of economic management can we get this economy onto a pathway to recovery. I say this: through the MYEFO period, we were to have a deficit accumulation of $667,000 million—$667 billion. Through the measures that have been implemented by this government, it has been able to be reduced to $389 billion. The problem is not fixed; it has just been reduced. I give all credit to the Treasurer and the financial team of Mathias Cormann for being able to get it down that far. I do not like delivering a budget where people feel pain, because when I was here during the Howard government we had the budget under so much control with growth and prosperity that we were able to hand out tax cuts and cheques and still deliver budget surpluses. This mob opposite destroyed the confidence of the Australian people, overspent, overreached and were never apologetic for it. In fact, they thought it was their God given right to continue to spend, spend and spend. If they had kept going, my great-great-great-great grandchildren, who have not even been thought of—I am not even a grandfather yet—would be paying off their debt. They would have entrenched it so hard that there would be no way to recover. It is only when you do the hard yards and the heavy lifting as a government that you can turn it around. One of the other areas that concerns me is the fact that we are paying in excess of $12,000 million each and every year in interest—$1 billion a month. At the same time, the Labor opposition criticised the government in relation to health, in relation to Gonski and in relation to the NDIS. The interest bill alone, per annum, is more than the cost of Gonski and NDIS together. I would like to think what $1,000 million a month would do for much-needed roadworks. The other thing I take great umbrage at is when members opposite get up and deliberately mislead the House when they say we are cutting funding for health. The facts in the budget are that New South Wales hospital funding will increase each year, from $4.6 billion in 2014-15 to $5.9 billion in 2017-18, and hospital funding for New South Wales will increase from $4.2 billion this financial year to $4.6 billion on 1 July in the 2014-15 year. So I ask myself the question. I thought that when you actually increased, when the numbers went up, that was more money going out. But I can understand the comments of those opposite, because they actually believe that their deficits are surpluses. They told us on so many occasions that budgets would keep returning to surplus. But do you know what? They had no intention at all. There is confusion out there. It is not like me to make negative comments on my state colleagues in the New South Wales parliament. I say this of my New South Wales colleagues because I want to be honest in relation to this budget. The fear that is being whipped up amongst our pensioners and concession cardholders is palpable. The fact is that the Commonwealth will provide—no adjustment to it—twice a year pension increases by the CPI. This year the CPI will be the highest form of measurement. So that is the benefit to our seniors. We are not cutting their pensions. All of the Commonwealth government concessions stay there. They stay there for pensioner concession cardholders, they stay there for Commonwealth healthcare cardholders and they stay there for Commonwealth senior cardholders. They stay there. According to some of the numbers in relation to the New South Wales concessions, and to the New South Wales Treasury analysis on the information provided to me, over the next four years, or the forward estimates, $732 million in public transport concessions, $323 million in council rate discounts, $643 million in water bill exemptions, $881 million in electricity rebates and $1.2 billion in fee exemptions for drivers licence tests and mobility parking schemes are to be paid out to pensioners. The federal contribution to the New South Wales government is but $107 million from 1 July this year and $450 million through the forward estimates. So if you work out that, of the $807 million that New South Wales will be paying this year, we are paying $107 million. If all of these concessions are to go, I do not think it is actually the federal government's funding that is cutting these concessions. I think that the state government should be a little bit more honest, if it intends to cut concessions, as to whose budget it is playing with—because it is not the federal budget. As I said, those concessions are primarily the responsibility of the state government. The state should be honest enough—not just New South Wales; other states have jumped in on this—to fess up to the people where the cuts are coming from and why. They are not coming because of cuts made by the federal budget. There are a couple of key reasons why I support this budget. First and foremost, it starts to get our economy back under control, reduces the deficit and therefore reduces interest bills. Also, there are particular aspects of this budget and appropriation which will help work with mobile telephone black spots in my electorate and the rollout of NBN in my electorate in particular, as I now have three more towers going up for fixed wireless networking in my electorate. As you would know, Deputy Speaker, as you have been up in my area a number of times, the geographic and topographic restrictions in my area and the spread of the population means that the broad land mass of my electorate will not receive cable to the home under any form of government. So fixed wireless installations are the answer, and they are getting underway. Addressing mobile phone black spots was part of the $100 million package put up by the coalition prior to the election and is now in our budget. Particularly impressive is the money that will be spent with our defence forces. After $30 billion worth of cutbacks in Defence, we are starting to catch up. There is the allocation not just for the acquisition of the joint strike fighter but also for the support services, of which $986 million will be spent at Williamtown RAAF base, upgrading facilities for them to come, making sure that our national interest and our national security are protected by the best platforms available. Making sure that the men and women of our nation have the best possible assets and face the minimum personal risk to themselves is paramount for any government. The decision by the coalition to invest in the air warfare destroyers, the LHDs, and now the joint strike fighters as a continuation of that, shows we are providing the best assets for our people. I look forward to that investment at Williamtown because the base upgrade will mean jobs for local people, as contractors will be engaged to upgrade runways and build new buildings, and because Lockheed Martin will be engaging a lot of people to work in a private capacity through contractors as a part of the project. There will also be flow-on effects to local companies such as Varley, to name but one, that will be manufacturing parts for the joint strike fighter in and around my region. I also welcome the road funding aspect of the budget. I congratulate the Prime Minister and also the Deputy Prime Minister for wanting this government to be known as an infrastructure building government. For too long we heard the Labor Party, in particular the member for Hunter, bang on about things like the Scone bypass. There were many years of rhetoric, but we have put the money in place and work is commencing. We have put up the hard cash in the budget—it is a line item, not just a rhetorical promise days before an election. The money is there. The former Deputy Prime Minister in the days before an election promised there would be money for the Tourle Street Bridge, but it was not in their budget. There were all the promises by the former Labor member for Newcastle but they never amounted to anything. The money is there now and work is beginning. My colleague and friend to the north, the member for Lyne, will appreciate the $16 million for Bucketts Way. That is great funding, although it should come down into my patch a little bit more. He has been doing a tremendous job up there. We are starting to see a greater rollout of roads of importance that will fix traffic congestion. We are starting to build the infrastructure of the future. Upgrades on the now M1, which used to be the F3, and the important piece of infrastructure, the connection between the M1 and the M2, so people no longer have to battle with traffic lights all the way through to get on the M1 and M2, are critically important. The best and brightest minds in the Labor Party lecture us when it comes to the economy, but I say to my constituent, and to the Australian community: have a look at their track record. They could not even get their projections right, let alone the outcome. They promised surpluses umpteen times, and delivered only deficits in the entire period they were in government. (Time expired) 17:33 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin For all the bluster, for all the wannabe Churchillian posturing we have seen in the past couple of weeks, this is fundamentally a government that lacks the courage of its convictions. The budget makes this clear—sadly, with devastating effects for our society. It presents a deeply ideological agenda, shrinking our sense of the public good, suggesting it is something that somehow arises out of necessity—but this simply is not so. The rationale underpinning this budget of broken promises is that there is an emergency. However, there seems to be some confusion, to say the least, amongst members opposite about the exact nature of this supposed emergency. We have heard the Prime Minister claim the house was on fire and then, confusingly, that Labor itself was the fire. On the other hand, we have heard the Treasurer downgrading the fire, saying it was just the kitchen, not the house, on fire. This is a government that cannot get its metaphors straight, let alone give a true account of its actions and purpose. Since then we have heard the Prime Minister say: You see, we had a fire, and the budget is the fire brigade. And sure, sometimes the fire brigade knocks over a few fences in order to put out the fire. 'A few fences'? What the Prime Minister refers to as a few fences being knocked over are in fact people, families, communities, neighbourhoods—all of whom quite reasonably expected their government to be on their side and not to be using dehumanising rhetoric to justify knocking them over. Of course, there is no fire, no emergency. The notion of an emergency is one that has been refuted by every economist in the country and, I might add, in other countries too. Even the National Commission of Audit chairman, Tony Shepherd, says so. If the government cannot convince one of the budget's architects that there is an emergency, then the argument is running threadbare, to say the least. The only crisis here is in the government's credibility and it is telling that they will not directly say what they mean, but they want to divide Australia and divide Australians, to take us back to the future, before Medicare, before higher education was opened up and before modern Australia. There are, however, some clues as to what is meant. In his second reading speech, the Treasurer said, invoking Menzies, that we are a nation of lifters, not leaners. In this budget it is the most vulnerable Australians who are doing most of the lifting. The Treasurer spoke also of fairness and intergenerational responsibility, and yet young people will bear the brunt of this government's cruelty. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling found that low-income couples, children and single parents will lose up to 15 per cent of their disposable income when these measures are fully implemented. NATSEM Principle Research Fellow, Ben Phillips, told Emma Griffiths from ABC News that around 1.2 million families would be, on average, around $3,000 a year worse off by 2017-18. An unemployed single parent of two school-age children would lose over $4,000 a year, or nearly 15 per cent of their disposable income, by 2017. This parent would still lose this amount if they found a job that paid $40,000. A couple with two school-age children who both work to bring in a combined income of $60,000 would lose $6,000 a year of their disposable income. Even if their annual income climbed to $90,000, the loss would remain the same. Mr Phillips described this as 'a substantial hit and these are of course to the families who are already in the most precarious positions'. I am inclined to stronger language. It is taking the most from those who have the least. In addition, research by the Crawford School of Public Policy at the ANU has found that those receiving government benefits do the heavy lifting, as the Treasurer would say, in this budget. This research found that an unemployed single parent with an eight-year-old child would lose $54 a week, 12 per cent of their disposable income. The GP tax, which is another broken promise, whatever members opposite might say, will also hit the most vulnerable the hardest, tearing down a signal Australian achievement—universal health care—and undermining great steps forward that have been taken in terms of preventative health. The Scullin electorate has the highest rate of bulk-billing in Victoria and I would like to keep it this way. Those opposite have other ideas. We have seen the Prime Minister and the Treasurer mislead the public about who would have to pay the GP tax. The coalition have also been repeating the canard that people are seeing a GP too often, using an inaccurate and inflated figure. Surely a general practitioner is better qualified than a right-wing ideologue in assessing someone's medical condition or someone's health needs. The sick are doing the lifting in this budget. The Treasurer has spoken about values being more important than figures in this budget—and I am sure that is true; I agree with him on that—but these are the wrong values that inform these budget decisions. The values message here is all too clear: if you are poor, then do not get sick. Or, more starkly: do not be poor—or young, for that matter. And the government's message to motorists, most of us, is just as blunt: if you drive, you will pay more. If you want to get public transport in the outer suburbs, good luck, because the coalition is ideologically opposed to investing in public transport infrastructure, much to the frustration of state colleagues in Victoria, at least. People in Scullin are crying out for public transport infrastructure investment because they have no choice but to drive all too often, and now they will pay at the pump for this government's broken promise on the petrol tax and its refusal to invest in Melbourne Metro and other public transport infrastructure projects. People in Scullin see through the accountancy tricks of this self-described infrastructure Prime Minister. They see no vision to keep our cities productive and liveable. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 17:39 to 17:53 Mr GILES 243609 Finally, I note the biggest lifters of all in this budget are the world's most vulnerable, as 21 per cent in budget savings come from our foreign aid budget. The cruellest cuts of all fall on those who are unable to defend themselves or even be heard here, those who rely on us the most. That is perhaps the most shameful aspect of this budget. The public's instinctive awareness of the unequal distribution of budget pain has been backed up by NATSEM research, which found that the temporary two per cent income tax increase for the nation's top earners would have a token impact. As Mr Phillips stated: If you're on $200,000 … your impact would be around $400 per year, and that compares to a single-earner family … who may be losing $3,000 to $4,000 per year by 2017-18 … the top income groups - so the top 20 per cent of households - would have either no impact or a very small positive impact. A key difference between the government's debt tax and the attacks on low- and middle-income earners is that the debt tax is temporary. The cuts to family payments and other cuts are permanent. It is also worth mentioning, and it is quite interesting, that these figures would have been included in previous budget papers but in this budget they were missing—funny that. I want to touch briefly on the impact this budget will have on young Australians, on our future. Firstly, I regard spending on education as investment not some dead-weight cost, which is how those opposite seem to treat it. Investing in our young and sometimes our not so young through lifelong learning is how we grow our economy in large part. Making education unaffordable by crippling students with large high-interest loans does not help grow our economy. It does not enable us to get the best and brightest into the most productive vocations. I think of the conversations I have had with constituents in recent days. One constituent was fearful and angry at the government's proposal to allow for an increase in university fees and the impact this would have on his two daughters—one at university and another aspiring to study medicine at the University of Melbourne—and on the community in general. He was of the view that, as a country, we need to ensure at least that if people apply themselves then they have the same opportunities no matter their economic background. I could not agree more with my constituent but I am disappointed that I was unable to assure him that this government would hold to that maxim. Prior to the election, when asked about increasing university fees, the Minister for Education, the member for Sturt, said: … we have no plans to increase fees … And after the election he said: I'm not even considering it because we promised that we wouldn't. So much for that: another broken promise, another callous disregard and breach of faith with the Australian community. Secondly, in terms of young people, I note the complete cut-off of any form of support for those under 30 is simply unconscionable in a society such as ours. The Treasurer and Prime Minister insist with robotic insistence that young people will simply find a job, even though Australia's youth unemployment rate is persistently at 12 per cent. The budget projections offer no prospect of this falling in the near future. Where are the jobs to come from, let alone the investment in these young Australians? The government has also cut programs like Youth Connections which helped young people remain engaged in education and training, and to find work. Why would the government make education more expensive, shut down youth employment programs and then cut off the safety net—any safety net—for young people? It is difficult not to arrive at the conclusion that this government just wants to hurt young, vulnerable Australians. So much for the rhetoric of intergenerational fairness and responsibility. Last week, I spoke with members of the Whittlesea and District Greek Elderly Citizens Club about the budget—or rather, they spoke to me. I did most of the listening as they told me in heartbreaking detail how difficult their lives would become because of decisions contained in this budget. They wanted to know why, if there was supposedly a budget emergency, there were still tax concessions for the wealthy to contribute to their superannuation and, in particular, how there could be $50,000 cheques sent to millionaires. They wanted to know how a one-off pay freeze to politicians pay was fair compared to a permanent cut to the pension. I had—and I have—no answer to these basic questions of fairness, because this budget is fundamentally unjust. It is also dishonest in its pretence at fairness when there is none. Constituents I hear from are in disbelief and are angry about what this government is seeking to do, and this is compounded by the words of the member for Higgins, who unselfconsciously wrote today in The Australian Financial Review: Selfishness has taken over from self-reliance. For our children's sake, we need to reverse the trend. This budget entrenches and embodies selfishness. And for our children's sake, I am seeking to reverse this trend—the trend of the government's making. I do not think people want to get into a mathematical debate about the price of everything, but people are right to be concerned with the standard and quality of living. It is no accident that in recent weeks inequality has become a hot topic right across the developed world. Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century has shone the light on intergenerational inequality—something much spoken about by this government but little attended to. And yet this government seems determined to return Australia to a gilded age of inequality, whereby if you are not born into wealth, the game of life is rigged against you. As Piketty writes: The history of inequality is shaped by the way economic, social and political actors view what is just and what is not, as well as by the relative power of those actors and the collective choices that result. This budget before us is an enactment of the excesses of wealth and power over the poor and vulnerable. It is unjust, and the Labor Party chooses to stand against these excesses. The Prime Minister promised—I think this was a solemn promise—that this would be a 'no surprises, no excuses' government. On Melbourne radio, the day before the election, the Prime Minister said: 'The fact is the most important thing I can do for our country in the coming months is to ensure that it is possible once more to have faith in your polity, to have faith in your government and that means keeping commitments.' I could not agree more with the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister. But, sadly, the months since that day show that the people of Australia can have no faith whatever in this government, a government that treats the promises it made before the election as mere statements of puffery which can be walked away from, if not openly laughed at, as the Minister for Education seemed to do in the chamber today. I am holding them to account for the broken promises of their government. The Treasurer of Australia described this process as 'silly populist games'. Treasurer, let me say this: keeping your promises is not a silly populist game. It is how elected officials keep faith with the Australian people. It is fundamental to the operation of our democratic system. The Prime Minister said that he would be prepared to take a hit in the polls for the country. How terribly noble of him! But families, students, the poor and so many others in our society are taking a hit already, a hit much larger and with a considerably more painful impact than this government's decline in polling—a decline that I am sure will continue. The premiers and chief ministers—most of them conservative—were clearly labouring under the delusion the Abbott government would keep its promises. I think they have learned their lesson now. The Prime Minister attempted to muddy the waters in this regard, claiming this government's $80 billion cuts to the health and education budgets of states and territories would not take effect for years. It turns out, of course, they will start taking effect on 1 July. As with cuts in other areas, there is no plan for how schools and hospitals are meant to cope with these cuts. They are expected to simply find efficiencies. Only the coalition could regard a hospital as more efficient when it closes beds or a school more efficient as it sacks teachers. While the people of Scullin will pay the price for this government's broken promises, this government will wear this budget like a crown of thorns at the next election—as it should. I was inspired by the Leader of the Opposition's rousing budget reply. It captured the real mood of the nation. I look forward to prosecuting the case against this government. But, more importantly, I look forward to making the case for a better, more inclusive government, one that keeps faith with the Australian people and one the Australian people can have faith in. This is a cruel budget that rests on a false premise, but it is so much worse than that. It is narrow, unfair, bereft of vision or competence and deeply, dishonestly ideological. It has already defined this government, and Labor will ensure that it does not confine Australia's future. 18:02 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey There comes a time when you have to stand up and be counted, when all of us have to make serious decisions about our future. In particular, governments should do what they believe is right for the nation and not necessarily what they believe will be popular in the short term. That is the point we are at at the moment. I have always said that we as elected members are sent to this place not to agree with every whim of every constituent who comes to see us each day. We are sent here because we are considered to be well-rounded individuals who will make well-informed decisions on behalf of our electorates. That is what governments should do as well. I turn to the budget. Is the budget today in crisis? There have been great discussions about that throughout the media and other places in Australia. This budget, the sixth one by Wayne Swan, that was left to us by the Labor government is $49 billion in the red. Is that a crisis? Could we as an incoming government have kicked the can down the road for a couple more years? Perhaps we could have, but by then the remedies would be more painful. I am worried that the civilised democracies of the world are in some way failing. They are still, as Winston Churchill said, the worst form of government except for all the rest. But, in fact, it seems to be increasingly difficult in advanced democracies for governments to give people what they need rather than what they want. If governments give people what they need and the constituency turns to another party that says it will give them what they want, which is the easy way out, then those who have the strength to deliver what they need are never in power. I see this right across the democracies of the Western world. And that is why it is so important to act earlier rather than later, before the problem becomes insurmountable—and we do have enough of a problem at the moment. Those who say that our debt is nothing to worry about, that it is not even to the average of the OECD nations, demonstrate to me that they have very little experience in managing debt and managing business debt. I was a farmer before I got to this place. Farmers say, 'We understand that there's good debt and there's bad debt.' Good debt for a farmer means that you might be expanding your agricultural operation. You might be buying the neighbour's farm, or you might be investing in land improvement. You might be investing in new machinery that will make you more efficient and grow a better crop. That is good debt because you are borrowing to grow a bigger pie. Bad debt is if you go and spend it on things like machinery you do not need, for instance, or overseas holidays, boats or beach shacks. Now, there is nothing wrong with any of those things, and many of my friends have them, but I strongly suggest that they do not borrow money to achieve those outcomes. In a national sense, examples of good debt are when governments borrow to build roads, rail and new ports and make the nation a more prosperous place. Bad debt, but not necessarily bad spending, is when we borrow and borrow increasing amounts to deal with the day-to-day expenses of government—things like pensions, health and education. And especially bad debt—I will put in another category here—is when government borrows money and wastes it. We have seen a bit of that in the recent past: pink batts, overpriced school halls, hopelessly run low-cost-housing initiatives for the homeless and an NBN plan drawn up on the back of a coaster. Since I am probably at risk of getting completely off the subject, enough said on that particular subject at the moment. But how have we come to be where we are? After six years of Labor government, we have total deficits of $191 billion and another $123 billion more in the pipeline. Treasury says that, without change, Australia faces deficits until 2024, and the Commission of Audit indicates that, without serious changes, they will not end then either. With no change in policy, we know that Australia would reach a peak debt of $667 billion. Remember Prime Minister Rudd's pronouncement—and he is a good friend, I am sure, of the member opposite, the member for Bruce. Mr Rudd said, 'We will be a government committed to surpluses.' But then, when he became elected and we had the GFC, he qualified that statement and said, 'We are a government that is committed to surpluses over the economic cycle.' Sixteen years plus—I just wonder: how long is that economic cycle? We are left in this mess because Labor has no plan but the fairy plan. That means that the fairies down at the bottom of the garden will do the job. We already pay $1 billion a month in interest on the borrowings, and in another six or seven years, without change, that would double to $2 billion a month. Perhaps those who think that is manageable should consider where our economy is at the moment. Interest rates could very well double in a period like six or seven years. We are at the low end of a cycle on interest rates. Two-thirds of our debt is held overseas and so is subject to the vagaries of international exchange rates, and we, as an exporting nation, are very susceptible to volatile commodity prices. In only the last few weeks we have seen iron ore, for instance, drop below $100 a tonne, down from $130 less than six months ago. Those types of shocks for the Australian economy are very real and could happen at any stage. That is why we need to be more conservative than other nations. We have known many of the problems facing the Australian economy for quite some time. Peter Costello's 2003 Intergenerational report laid it out on the table. We have an ageing population and a bulge which is going to put demands on our economy that we have never seen before. Costello, to his credit, is the only Treasurer up until Joe Hockey to actually have a go at trying to do something about it. It is all very new age to dump on Peter Costello now and say: 'He didn't do enough with the mining boom. Why didn't they save more money?' But at the time my memory was that there was plenty of pressure going around saying, 'Why are you taking all our taxes and running a $20 billion surplus?' So Peter Costello wisely invested in the Future Fund, around about $70 billion. That is now $88 billion. Since Costello left the Treasury, since we lost the election in 2007, what has been contributed to the Future Fund from government funds? Nothing, not another cent. Yet it was meant to target $140 billion, and that is just to meet the superannuation costs of public servants. Yes, the budget has some firm measures but none of us should believe any of the hyperbole predicting the end of the world as we know it from the usual suspects. What else can they say? Largely we are where we are now because of them. Take, for instance, the higher education reforms. Last year I was privileged to be part of a Liberal Party working group on online education. It was an eye-opener. The advent of the massive online open courses has been a revolution across the online world. Increasingly quality universities around the world are focusing their resources into developing quality degrees online. In the future you will see students in Australia being able to log onto their online course 24 hours a day for advice. They will have computer systems which will adapt to their learning ability, that will build new work programs around the student reflecting their weaknesses and their strengths. This will be a revolution. So instead of shopping down the end of the street at the local university for your degree, you will be able to have your degree from the very best universities in the world wherever they may be. We know that Australian universities, like our schools unfortunately, are slipping down the pecking order. The people who make the loudest noise would have us believe that everything is working now. It is not working now. We have got problems in the system now that we need to address. Unless we do something we are heading for a slow train wreck because much of the money that sustains our higher education system at the moment is coming from overseas students, chiefly out of Asia. If we keep slipping down that pecking order we will not have those students because increasingly they have better universities and they will have that online opportunity to get quality degrees at a reasonable price. We have to allow our universities the flexibility to adapt into this new marketplace and we really do need to have a number of quality universities in the top 20 and in the top 100 so that we can market brand Australia as an education destination. Let us have a quick look at Medicare and the co-payment. Ten years ago we were spending $8 billion on Medicare; now it is $19 billion, more than double. The Australian population in 2004 was 20 million; now it is 23 million, an increase of 15 per cent. So we have doubled expenditure on Medicare while our population has only gone up 15 per cent. If we do nothing, by 2024 it will be $34 billion, or almost double again. I do not have to tell you the population will not be doubled by then. Clearly that is not sustainable. That is why we need to make a stand now and start to pull the budget back into order. I have been saying throughout my electorate that the budget has something that everybody does not like and I think that is probably an indication that we are trying to spread the load across the electorate. On that basis I have been saying to Australians that we all have to bear a bit of pain and all have to do our bit for the nation. That is why I say they should consider the budget as a down payment on Australia's future. However, on the basis that we should spread the pain equally across Australia and the states and electorates, I must register my disappointment at the loss of the supplementary roads program to South Australian councils, one that cuts particularly close to home. This supplementary road program has been in place since 2004. It was recognised by John Howard and Peter Costello in those times that South Australia was the victim of a faulty formula in the distribution of the identified local roads funding program. In 2004 the government funded a three-year program to address this shortfall. In 2007 it extended it for another three years. In 2010 the then Rudd government gave it two more years and, in 2013, just one more year. You would have to think that that was just to get it past the election. To my mind, there is no way that, had the Labor Party been returned, we would ever have seen the program funded again on that basis—because it was not in the forward estimates. Even though I understand that, in that case, it would be a new funding program for this government, I do not think we have got it right. The perception that the formula is flawed is held widely throughout South Australia. It has been in place since the early 1990s and I think that, if we are not to have the funding, at the very least we should have a review of this situation—and it should be done urgently. So I am calling on my colleagues in government to move towards that position, to fix a wrong that has existed for some time. If the South Australian councils have the opportunity to have their say and their case is found wanting, at least we can then move on from that conflict and say, 'That is behind us—you have had your opportunity and we have found that the formula is correct, so let's put up with it.' If, on the other hand, it is found to be deficient, then of course as a government interested in fairness we should do something about it. Without taking us too far off track, in the 35 seconds I have left I would like to look briefly at what happened in Greece. While I do not liken Australia's debt situation to that of Greece, let me say that when we talk about Australian government debt we are talking about only 50 per cent of it. Fifty per cent of it is held by the states. For those that compare us to other OECD countries, they do not necessarily have state debt. In about 25 years, Greece went from not much debt to an absolute cot case and they had to cut the pension by over 60 per cent. (Time expired) 18:17 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra For many months now, I have been bracing myself for the impact of this budget. I knew that this budget would be bad for Canberra and I warned my constituents accordingly—so much so, in fact, that the Liberal senator for the ACT accused me of scaremongering on more than one occasion. However, not even I was prepared for just how bad this budget turned out to be. The Abbott government made absolutely no attempt to hide its disdain for Canberra and for the Public Service. I knew that cuts to the Public Service were coming but, that said, I had not expected the cuts to be so harsh—some 16½ thousand jobs cut plus an increase in the efficiency dividend of 0.25 per cent. There are over 7,000 Public Service jobs to go in the next year alone. The impacts of this budget on Canberra will be even worse than I had feared. I have had constituents tell me that they think it could even be worse than 1996—and I will just remind those opposite of what happened to my city in 1996. In 1996, the Howard government was elected on a supposed promise to get rid of 2½ thousand public servants through natural attrition. That ended up being 15,000 public servants here in Canberra alone and 30,000 nationally. What was the impact on my town? House prices plummeted and we went through an economic slump for five years. We had two quarters of negative growth; people left town; the local shops closed down; businesses went under; bankruptcies, both non-business and business, went up. It had a huge impact not just on Canberra but on the entire capital region—Yass, Griffith, Queanbeyan, down at the South Coast and all around. It had an enormous impact, an enormous ripple effect, and it was five years before we came out of that hole. So when I am accused by Liberal senators for the ACT of scaremongering, I say to them: 'All I'm doing is reading the budget out loud.' In addition to the Public Service job cuts, Canberra was hit with funding cuts to the ANU, the University of Canberra, NICTA and CSIRO. Canberra's world-class cultural institutions were hit with cuts that will lead to the loss of specialised and skilled staff. And in the first budget of the self-proclaimed infrastructure Prime Minister there was a distinct lack of infrastructure investment in the national capital. This was the worst possible version of the attack on Canberra for which I had been bracing. In fact, as I said, some people have said that it is even worse than 1996 and what happened to this town then. However, what I had not expected was that this budget would also be a blatant and outrageous attack on the youth of Australia. I also did not expect a Prime Minister who had said that there is no greater friend of Medicare than him to destroy the fundamental principles of the universality of Medicare. I did not expect a Prime Minister who was a former health minister and knows full well the benefits of preventive and primary health to completely undermine the principles of preventive and primary health that exist throughout the MBS and PBS. And I did not expect a Prime Minister who said he would be the Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs to rip hundreds of millions of dollars of funding from Indigenous health. I attended a crisis meeting last week with the Indigenous community health service provider in my electorate, Winnunga Nimmityjah. They provide a fantastic service to between 30 and 50 per cent of the region for everything from diabetes control to immunisation, child and neonatal health, GP services, dental health, physio, psychology and psychiatry—you name it. Winnunga provide a fantastic service to the Indigenous members of our community in Canberra and the capital region. At this crisis meeting they called of people not just in Canberra but from around the country I was told by those Indigenous health leaders that, through the cuts that will happen as a result of the Abbott government budget, the gap will not close but widen. I did not expect a Prime Minister who promised prior to the election that he would make no changes to the age pension to rip funding from pensioners by lowering the indexation rate for that pension. I did not expect a government that had spent the last six years in opposition speaking about cost of living and framing every single debate around cost of living, to introduce at the first chance a budget that dramatically increases the cost of living for Australian families. Perhaps what I least expected was a government that said it wanted to fix the budget being a government that in fact created a false budget emergency so that it could be seen to be fixing the budget and not just reduce the deficit. Instead, this budget was full of new spending initiatives such as the gold plated parental leave, an $8 billion gift to the Reserve Bank and a new medical research fund. Even though I went into this budget fearing the worst, I had obviously overestimated the Abbott government. The Australian people have seen this budget for what it is: grossly unfair, based on lies and bad for our country. If those opposite will not listen to me perhaps they will listen to my constituents. The letters I am about to read out are just some of the dozens of emails, letters and phone calls I have received over the past two weeks from Canberrans outraged by the Abbott government's budget of broken promises. The first reads: Hi Gai I live in Kambah and have two sons studying at a school in Canberra, one currently completing Year 12 and the other in Year 10. Two weeks before Christmas last year I lost my job via a "Voluntary" redundancy (which of course wasn't really voluntary at all). I had been a dedicated and efficient public servant for the past 25 years. I have been unemployed since and although I've applied for many jobs, I have been unsuccessful in being able to obtain one (even just an interview). I am 46 years old so it will be quite some time before I can draw a superannuation pension therefore I have to work. Before the Election, my two sons both had apprenticeships lined up. However, since and because of the Budget, both offers of apprenticeships have been withdrawn by their potential employers. This has really upset them and I worry greatly for their futures. I don't know how we are going to survive. Really, I am so terribly worried about our future. In my 25 years as a public servant, I've never seen it this bad in Canberra. Please FIGHT and fight hard for us against this budget and this destructive Government. They have gone in too hard, too fast and hit the people who can least afford it. I ask that you strongly oppose this Budget with all your might and trigger another Election. The next one reads: Dear Ms Brodtmann, I am an expat Australian living in Asia. I was devastated to hear that the government has axed the Australian Network. I watch it almost every evening, and the AFL football on the weekend. It is my life line to home: the news, the drama series (world class) and of course the footy. I encourage my English language students to view the free language lessons available. Most importantly, it is 'Australia's presence' in the region, one of the G20, more powerful than a military base. The status it gives us, the prestige it bestows (most countries cannot have a global network), is uncountable, and surely worth more than the meagre millions being redirected. Please raise this matter with the government—Australians living and working o/s are collectively gutted! thank you for your time. This letter reads: Dear Gai, What a nightmare the budget is! I understand that we, as a country, need to make changes to reduce our deficit and plan for the increase in cost of some areas of the future, but we are so disappointed that this budget is just so unimaginative and base. The policy that distresses us most at the moment is the deregulation of the University fee structure and the resultant higher fees. Our son is currently in his second year at the University of Sydney, so he will be less affected than younger people yet to start out. Please Gai we need you and your colleagues to do something about this terrible policy. What amendments can you propose, what parts can you block? How will our young people ever be able to afford to buy houses when they will be saddled with an $80K debt? How will they afford higher degrees and what will it do to their general spending power, none of this can be good for the economy. We want to commend and encourage you in your fight for the best for this country. Another letter reads: I am an ACT resident so I write to you all as representatives with a feeling of desperation for common sense and decency in this country. I find it hard to stomach seeing our current government present and then defend their proposed budget that targets the less well off in the country while providing what is effectively a handout to big business. I've been unemployed here in Canberra for 12 months. So all these young people will now have to wait with zero income and then only get 6 months cover before plunging back to zero income. Sure there will always be ways to improve targeting but can the government please see and acknowledge that crime rates will be affected for instance, severe hardship will be imposed on families, depression rates increase? I have always looked to the government and paid my taxes all my life in the belief that the money is a fair contribution to society and those on the margins and should always be there. You don't balance a budget by kicking unemployed people in the guts and handing big sums in a Paid Parental Leave scheme that no-one else but Tony Abbot was calling for! Another one reads: This is the first time I have written to a politician since I was at university—a long time ago—but I feel I have a moral duty to say something now. As a sixth generation Australian I am appalled at what the government has done. I see a government for the top 3 % in our society looking for the best possible way to fund reductions in their private and corporate income tax by reducing support for the most vulnerable in our society. The measures the government has announced are designed to create an underclass denied the long term health, education and social benefits we, as citizens of one of the wealthiest countries in the world, should make available to everyone. How can it benefit our future to create an underclass of the chronically ill, under educated and disaffected? In this technological society there is and will continue to be fewer and fewer places for the unskilled. Why create more of them and how will these people work into their 70s? This budget will end any ambition that Australia might become 'the clever country'. It certainly would have ensured that I, as a policeman's daughter in the 1970s, would never have got to university. I am perfectly cognisant of the fact that we have an aging and longer living population but dumping half of them on a scrap heap of need doesn't seem to be a moral response. The ridiculous levy will be felt by few and paid by less. These changes won't affect me much but they will affect my view of my country. Any society is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members. The Prime Minister has cast his attempt to change the nature of this country as an 'act of political courage'. Maybe, but it is not an intelligent act nor a goodhearted one. I would prefer to describe it as an 'act of political bastardry'. As my elected representative I am requesting that you do everything in your power to prevent these appalling assaults on our social fabric—even if that means we end up going to the polls again this year. And another reads: Hi Gai, I'm not normally one to write to politicians, however I feel in this case I need to express my concern with the way the country is being managed. I am 28 years old, single with no children, earn around 100K per year with the federal APS and have private health insurance. I pay my fair share of taxes, contribute to the community through volunteer work and actively represent the Australian culture by being fair and equal to others. However, I am greatly concerned with the recent federal budget and the impact it is going to have on me and the Canberra community. Firstly, I am concerned with the large-scale public sector cuts being disproportionately thrown at the Canberra community. I am worried about the flow on effect this will have on the local economy including retail and hospitality, as well as the housing market, thus creating a mass exodus of locals finding greater stability in other areas of the country. I am so sick of having to defend my profession when I speak to non-locals, or continually view the Liberal Party's smearing of the public sector as lazy fat cats who sit ripe on high incomes. That 100K I'm earning—do you know how many Christmas's I have spent away from family, or holidays I have sacrificed to meet the government's policy objectives, or the late nights spent worrying about a deadline. I can assure you that I'm definitely not sitting around, smoking a cigar enjoying the so called lazy fat cat lifestyle of the public service. Secondly, I am concerned about the federal government's withdrawal of $80 billion in state/territory funding for health and education, and the possibility that this may position the state and territories in a situation where they request an increase in the GST. Thankfully I am earning quite a nice salary, especially for my age, however how do you expect the general population to survive in this country when gas and electricity is going up, fuel prices continue to rise (especially in Canberra), healthy food is too expensive for a single income let alone a family, and on top of that the GST may rise. Gai, how are people supposed to survive? Lastly, I am concerned with the increase to the fuel excise in a city that heavily relies on cars because of an inadequate public transport system. Will the light rail project continue now that the ACT economy is going to lose funding? I am very concerned about the way Canberra has been hit with this budget, and as a member of the voting public—a taxpayer and contributing member to the Canberra community—I want to ensure that my concerns are heard and acknowledged, and represented as necessary. To those opposite, I implore you: if you will not listen to me, listen to the people of Canberra and of Australia. The people who have contacted me are not necessarily Labor supporters; they are not necessarily political. They are just ordinary Australians, ordinary Canberrans, who have been outraged by this budget, who have been betrayed by a Prime Minister who promised that he would be true to his word. This is not only a budget of broken promises but a budget of broken dreams. It is a budget that will both entrench and widen the gap between the rich and the poor. It is a budget that is unfair and, to quote one of my constituents: 'devastating for Canberra and is a budget that asks Canberrans to do the heavy lifting for the nation'. (Time expired) 18:32 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne This is a tough budget; it had to be. To make an analogy of the mortgage on an Australian house: the house had been paid for, the mortgage had been paid off. We had savings in the bank but, in the space of six years, slowly, we as a nation had all our savings spent for us. The house had been remortgaged, then mortgaged again for another five years so that the mortgage was greater than the value of the house. The then government mortgaged it a bit more and started paying off the bill with a credit card. That is such a good analogy. That is the situation we are in. That is why this budget had to be tough. The coalition promised to stop the boats and to end the waste. We promised to build the roads of the 21st century and, most importantly, we promised to get the budget back under control. We have introduced and implemented policies necessary to stop the boats. We have not had any arrivals for over five months. We have begun investing in Australia's biggest infrastructure program, with $50 billion to be spent up to 2019. We are cutting red tape and getting rid of the waste. Earlier in this parliament we introduced measures to cut over $700 million in federal red tape costs. We are getting the budget back under control. The reality is, if we had continued on that spending binge, wasting money on things like school hall rip-offs, broken-down laptops and with billions of dollars in deficit, our gross debt at the end of 2024, just 10 years in the future, would have reached $667 billion. The interest rate on our current debt equates to $12 billion a year, and that is rising. That is an amazing amount of money. In the last three governments of Rudd, Gillard and Rudd, the millions, which were often quoted as huge amounts of money, slowly rolled into billions. People have got blase about debt. But what could we have done with $12 billion? We could have been building a four-lane divided highway from Sydney to Brisbane every year. We could have built 40 state-of-the-art regional base hospitals. Better still, over the last six years we could have established two or three of the Medical Research Future Fund that we are creating. There are short-term measures which have changed the situation for the nation, but they had to be made so that there can be long-term repair. We want to be back on track to being a competitive nation, capable of tackling the challenges that the world throws up. We are dependent, to a large degree, on China's economy. What would happen to our economy if there was turmoil in China? There was the Arab Spring. What would happen to our economy if there was a 'Chinese Spring'? Who knows what could happen? We are building infrastructure that will deliver long-term productivity gains. It will create employment, with a run-off in associated industries. We will be in a much better situation to cope with any international economic shocks. Contrary to Labor's misinformation campaign, pensions will continue to rise. They will go up twice a year for the term of this parliament according to the current indexation. Then they will go up according to CPI. Education spending will increase over the term of this parliament. To put things in perspective, annual assistance to the states for public hospitals will increase by more than nine per cent each year over the next three years and then four per cent in the fourth year. That is a massive increase of state expenditure. The funding for public hospitals will increase by more than $5 billion, from $13.8 billion this year to $18.9 billion in 2017-18. Overall health spending will increase by $10 billion or 16 per cent from $64.5 billion to $74.8 billion in 2017-18. Plus, we will have created the Medical Research Future Fund, which will itself deliver great efficiencies in the way we deliver health care. Medical research is where all the medical advances that we take for granted come from. Also, contrary to the misinformation campaign that has hit the airwaves since the budget was released, there will be a record recurrent funding investment of $64.5 billion in schools over the next four years from the federal government. As I mentioned, the pension is not being reduced. It will increase again this September. Age pensioners will be better off as well because, by cutting the carbon tax, that annual cost of $550 for every household will be reduced. The energy supplement will continue. The pension supplement will continue. The demographics of the nation are changing. By 2035, one in three of us will live to be 100. By that time, there will be a 400 per cent increase in those over 85 years of age. We have to make things sustainable. The pension age was already changed to 67 by the previous government for future years, from 2023. But we are giving a whole generation of people the chance to plan for their pension eligibility age by 2035. The reason for that is that there will be twice as many of us who are in the state of requiring government support. At the moment 80 per cent of people over 65 end up relying on a pension. If that doubles with the increases over time it would simply not be sustainable. The previous government recognised this and governments overseas have realised this. We have to take the hard decisions now. The other thing is that just in this four-year term our debt—and I have mentioned the 10-year debt projections—if we sat back and did nothing, which some members on the other side of the House have recommended we do, we would be left with another $123 billion on top of the $200 billion we already owe. By means of this budget and the tough decisions, that $123 billion projected debt will be halved to $60 billion, and the 10-year debt will be down to $389 billion. These are massive amounts of debt, and if we do not address these changes we will be in the situation of Greece, Ireland, Spain and all those nations that for the last 20 or 30 years have been living off the credit card. Most of these nations have got to the stage where their debt is so great that it is beyond the means of any nation to get rid of. So they are committed to paying massive amounts of interest on the international borrowings, virtually forever. Nevertheless, all those nations that I have mentioned have redressed this and are trying to get their debt under control. It is the same in the UK; they were in a situation where they realised that things had to change. People should not be afraid of change if they realise it is for their long-term sustainability. We, as a generation, cannot saddle our children and our children's children with paying perpetual amounts of the annual budget of the nation in interest payments. The infrastructure spend that I have mentioned is a massive bill. Just in my electorate of Lyne, we will have $1.129 billion spent on the Pacific Highway dual lane expansion. That will deliver at least 1,000 direct jobs and probably the same number again in indirect jobs. It will bring our part of the mid-North Coast closer to the Brisbane market. Transport costs will shrink. The produce that we bring into the region, the product that we get out and our tourism products all rely on the Pacific Highway, so it will be a massive benefit. The Bucketts Way, the artery of commerce in the south-west of the electorate, has been long ignored by the last government. They made all sorts of pronouncements about improving it, but we are actually delivering $17.8 million, including GST, to the Gloucester council and the Greater Taree City Council in the term of this government. We have announced increases to black spots and Roads to Recovery funding, which are essential. You should see the state of some of the roads in the regions. They no longer have a continuous bitumen surface; they are a collection—a mosaic—of patches for stretches of hundreds and hundreds of metres. There is a clean sheet every now and then, rather than the other way round, with an odd patch every now and again. And that leads to road safety improvement. Financial assistance grants are quarantined to councils, so they will continue. The deregulation of the higher education sector will mean that there is an expansion of the demand-driven system and, with the budget estimates and education assessments, hopefully that will lead to another 80,000 students being enrolled in education beyond school. The deregulation and the changes the budget bring in mean that it will be delivered through alternative pathways into universities. Colleges with diplomas, associate diplomas and associate degrees, of which there are several in my region, will have students who can access Commonwealth supported places because we have expanded the number of institutions that attract Commonwealth funding. As well, the existing institutions that have the ability to raise fees will be putting into their own funds for Commonwealth scholarships. One dollar in five of the money they raise from the deregulation will go into that. So people with low-socioeconomic capability and standing will have another fund to enhance their entry into higher education. Contributions from the savings from the co-payment will be delivered into the Medical Research Future Fund. What a great initiative. Medical research is something that Australian scientists are really good at. If that can be used in some of the existing programs, the research can be sped up. New avenues of research can be developed. There is so much intellectual capital in the scientific, particularly in the biomedical and the medical, space. This will be an area of growth. If you look at all the medical scientists in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, the major centres, the spin-off to the economy is staggering. Talk about growing. The best businesses to grow in your own region are those that are already there. People look for these magic new industries, and they do come along all the time, but the quickest way to expand things is to expand what you do now. That is what that Medical Research Future Fund will do. There are many challenges that the nation faces, but this budget is addressing them. All the social good and every program that Australians rely on will come into question. Can you imagine if we do not make the tough decisions now? Can you imagine if we did, as one of the previous members mentioned, kick the problem down the road, which countries overseas have done for decades? Their chickens have come home to roost. We have to make the tough decisions, and that is what this budget does. But they have been responsible, they have been measured and they are necessary. I commend these bills to the House. 18:47 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Firstly let me say to the previous member that I have been an observer of budgets since I first came into this place in 1987, and this budget perpetrates the greatest fraud on the Australian community of any budget I have witnessed or known of. New members into this place need to really understand what a fraud this budget is. It is based on lies as a result of announcements made by the Prime Minister before the election that there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions and no plans to increase university fees, and that Tony Abbott would be the infrastructure Prime Minister and the Prime Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Nothing could be further from the truth. All this budget does is perpetrate a fraud upon the Australian community. Australians are rightly, as the Leader of the Opposition said, shocked and angry—shocked by the brutality of the government's attack on our way of life and angry at a Prime Minister who pretended to be on our side. We just need to look at the various items in the budget to get a really good appreciation of what that means. Health should not be determined by your wealth. However, a GP tax or more expensive medicines will put more pressure on families struggling to make ends meet. If people do not go to the doctor because of this tax, the health of people will fail, with more acute presentations. PBS medicines will also incur, of course, a co-payment. Let me be very clear. We already know that people have taken the decision, as a result of the budget announcement, not to go to the doctors. We have heard this from doctors in Western Sydney. We know it from doctors in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services. This is what is happening. People have been scared by this announcement. If the sickest and poorest of Australians do not see a doctor, that means the sickest and poorest Australians will die early. That is what will happen as a direct result of this budget. This government has failed one of its prime responsibilities, to care for its people, and it will of course cost us more in the long run. Hospitals servicing the people of Lingiari will also face a $2.8 billion cut over five years. These hospitals are already bursting at the seams and struggling within their own budgets. The Northern Territory government has cut funding in health and education at the same time as this government has done the same thing. The Prime Minister lied to voters before the election, and his lies will now hurt poorer families and the most disadvantaged. Lingiari schools will face cuts of up to $181.7 million over the next five years. From 2018, schools will be further handicapped by reduced indexation payments. University student loans will have to be repaid earlier with a substantial increase of interest payments from a current 2.25 per cent, and they will be asked to cough up 60 per cent of the cost of going to university. Let us be very clear about this. People who come from regional Australia, from remote Australia, from my electorate—all of the Northern Territory except Darwin and Palmerston, including Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands, 1.34 million square kilometres, a very dispersed population—will be the most disadvantaged by these hideous attacks upon their livelihood and upon the way of life that they experience. University will become less of an attractive option, and regional universities such as Charles Darwin University will suffer as a result of the announcements which have been made in this budget. The result for young people in Lingiari will almost certainly mean a decline in the numbers of those interested in pursuing a tertiary education at Charles Darwin University or other universities around the country. Lingiari pensioners, of course, will be hit as every other pensioner in Australia will be hit as a result of the announcements made in this budget. Now they will have to work longer and then receive a pension, if they are lucky, which is significantly reduced due to a change in the indexation system from the current 27.7 per cent of average male weekly earnings to a new, lesser, CPI index. Over time, that will cause a dramatic hit to their pocket, and they know it. This government is trying again to perpetuate a lie that somehow or another, because it will index pensions continually and move the CPI, it will not make a difference. The government knows it makes a difference. Old-age pensioners in this country know it makes a difference. Any reasonable Australian will understand that it will make a difference. And of course the government have perpetrated the same hideous attack upon service pensioners. I cannot believe what the government have done, yet they have the hide to say that they are a friend of Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans. They are far from that. Indeed, when we look at job seekers, we see people with no income support for six months. What will job seekers under 30 years old do with no income or support for six months? Who is going to support them in a place like Lingiari with dispersed populations, overcrowded houses, no jobs and no training opportunities? Who is going to do this? The mind boggles at the inane way in which this government has formulated this budget, because it has attacked the most vulnerable and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it will create an underclass. And, of course, under-25-year-olds will lose their Newstart allowance to go onto the much lower youth allowance. This will put enormous pressure upon families not only in Lingiari but across this country. Then we heard today about infrastructure. We heard the Deputy Prime Minister get up in question time today and pout on about how he had done such magnificent things in the seat of Lingiari as a result of this budget. The only infrastructure money of any substance for my electorate of Lingiari appears to be $45 million for six strategic bush roads. These were announcements which I made previously and which were accounted for in the forward estimates from the former Labor budgets. There were no new announcements—no new announcements—made for Lingiari. Overall, the Territory, with a sixth of the Australian landmass, will receive for infrastructure around $670 million over 10 years—$67 million a year—out of a national budget of $126 billion. Even the ACT will get $700 million, more than the Northern Territory. Have an understanding, Prime Minister, of the infrastructure needs of remote and regional Australia. You clearly do not, and certainly the Deputy Prime Minister has no idea. Aboriginal people of Lingiari make up 40 per cent of the electorate's population. They have been particularly let down by this budget and by their own senator and minister, Senator Scullion. He is responsible as a senator and a cabinet minister for advocating for the Territory and its interests at the cabinet table. He has failed miserably. Senator Scullion sat by and watched $534 million be ripped out of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs budget? How can you be serious about closing the gap when you rip $534 million of program money from these budgets? $160 million over three years has been ripped out of the Aboriginal health budget. They have put that money into their health future fund. If you were going to take this money out because you thought you could find some efficiencies, you would invest the money back into front-line services. That is not what this government have done. They have abandoned Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians through these hideous cuts. Cuts to child care, arts centres, drug, alcohol and tobacco education and mental health programs will have an enormous impact on Australia's first peoples. In addition, Aboriginal legal services will have to endure cuts of $13 million over four years, which will result in more Aborigines going to jail for what will likely be trivial offences like nonpayment of fines. What a shame. Shame on Senator Scullion and shame on the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Indigenous health is something I know something about. I know a lot about some things, but this is something I know a particular amount about. The Abbott government need to come clean about the real impacts of these deep cuts to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. They have clearly failed to appreciate the serious repercussions of the cuts they have made and of the new taxes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health outcomes. The evidence is undisputed. Smoking contributes to a four-year difference in the life expectancy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Smoking contributes to 20 per cent of deaths of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. It directly causes a third of the burden of cardiovascular disease and cancer in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Yet this government, through this budget, is cutting funding to the anti-tobacco campaigns in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. We know already that in cutting the Preventive Health Agency they are making a mockery of their supposed concern for the lives of ordinary Australians let alone Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. They have made it very, very clear that this fundamental, very important and essential part of our health infrastructure—the Preventive Health Agency—has no place in their future. We all know about the tsunami of diabetes which is confronting us. This organisation is very important, yet it is nothing to this government. They know that chronic disease will only be improved by encouraging people to seek treatment, get health checks and access preventative health services such as these smoking education campaigns. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health service will have to absorb the massive cost of the co-payments. Many will be unable to cover the cost of vital health services, such as pathology, imaging and a range of specialist services that are often required with complex health issues. The people who will suffer are the sickest and poorest people in this country, and those are the people for whom we are saying we want to close the gap on life expectancy. They are going to be hit hard by these proposals. We know that they are less likely to seek assistance through health services. Let me talk about petrol for a moment. Constituents in my electorate pay on average more than 22c per litre for fuel than the national average bowser price. That is if you live in a city like Alice or Katherine. If you live in a remote community like Numbulwar or Alpurrurulam, before this heartless budget you would have expected to pay more than $2.55 a litre. This price will increase rapidly over the next four years because of the indexation arrangements for petrol they are going to reintroduce—and there will be no relief from this government. Again, the people who most need assistance in our community are going to be disadvantaged. The majority of businesses in Lingiari are small businesses and they will not benefit from any of the company tax cuts the Prime Minister has made for his mates at the big end of town. Lingiari small businesses will simply see their business inputs, in particular fuel prices, continue to rise. Then there is the hit to families. The Prime Minister said in May 2011: A dumb way— to cut spending— would be to threaten family benefits or means test them further. What has he done in this budget? In this budget of cruel surprises it is no real surprise that he has slugged family payments big time. We know what this means. The cut in family tax benefit end-of-year supplement will result in up to $306 per year less to spend at that important time for families when expenses mount up for Christmas. Lingiari Aboriginal families have over 20 per cent more 0-14-year-olds than the national average. They will be the hardest hit. Yet he has got billions of dollars to spend on the really subversive Paid Parental Leave scheme. What a way to spend your money. What a priority this government has got: feed the pockets of millionaires and don't look after families who are most in need. That is clearly what this budget is designed to do. It will create an underclass. Lingiari will also feel the pain caused by cuts to local government from Regional Development Australia funding. In particular I am disappointed with the defunding of a project partnership between the Katherine Town Council and Godinymayin Yijard Rivers Arts and Cultural Centre to deliver stage 2 of the centre in the Katherine cultural precinct. This project was going to provide increased opportunities for income generation, community engagement, employment and training. You just cannot continue to perpetuate this fraud upon the Australian community. You promise one thing before the election and do entirely the opposite after it. Let me talk about veterans' affairs for a moment. The Prime Minister and the current Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Ronaldson, have stated many times that our veterans deserve to be recognised for their unique contribution to Australia. I agree wholeheartedly. Yet what he has done in this budget is cut the veterans' affairs budget by more than $100 million, down from Labor's record $12.5 billion in our 2013-14 budget. The coalition will scrap the senior supplement for veterans who hold a Commonwealth seniors card or gold card, which helps pay for energy costs, telephone and internet costs and water and sewerage expenses. In another blow to veterans, military and other untaxed superannuation income will be counted as income when applying for a Commonwealth seniors card and the deeming rate thresholds will be moved, hitting the part pension of some veterans with small amounts of assets. You cannot continue to tell these fibs. The people of Lingiari are reeling after this budget. We need to understand that this parliament and this government have an obligation that we should never forget the fair go, we should never forget that Australia is a country where all can share and none should be left behind. But that is precisely what this government does. It will leave people behind, it will create a new underclass. It is a shame on this government, and every member of the government should be most concerned about what this budget will do to the way of life of so many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians. 19:02 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell On 5 December 2013 I had the privilege of speaking in this place for the first time. On behalf of the people of Dobell I outlined my vision for a future with hope, reward and opportunity. I spoke of the need for the stable jobs that provide meaningful work essential to allowing us to take out long-term investments in our homes and our future. A stronger economy is the key to almost everything we wish for as a community. This government's first budget corrects our nation's course, setting of us on a path towards more jobs, higher wages, better services and a stronger and more cohesive community. These objectives drive our economic action strategy. We must repair the budget and build a strong and prosperous economy for all Australians. In my maiden speech I spoke about my desire to see Dobell prosper, my desire for a region home to a vibrant and healthy community well supported and connected through coordinated services and infrastructure, a region with more local employment and quality investment, a region where residents have choice. This budget forms the foundation upon which a stronger Dobell will be built. This government is getting on with the job of building a stronger economy so that everyone can get ahead. This means abolishing the carbon tax, ending the waste, stopping the boats and building the roads of the 21st century. But we must never forget why we were elected to do this. Labor's legacy to Australians is 200,000 more unemployed, gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion, $123 billion in cumulative deficits, more than 50,000 illegal arrivals by boat, the world's biggest carbon tax and a $1 billion per month interest bill. We simply could not continue as we were when Labor and the Greens were in charge. We could not afford to continue paying the mortgage on the credit card to the tune of $1 billion per month. We are doing what we said we would do. The budget calls on everyone to contribute, to join and grow the workforce, to boost productivity and to help build a stronger economy with more investment. The government is making a historic investment in the 2014-15 budget to get on with building Australia's infrastructure. A core element of the government's economic action strategy is the commitment of an additional $11.6 billion for the Infrastructure Growth Package. By 2019-20 the Commonwealth's total investment in infrastructure will be $50 billion. The people of Dobell and the Central Coast have long been calling for their fair share of infrastructure funding. For too long our needs were ignored. For six long years under Labor, the people of Dobell were neglected. Dobell will benefit from this government's commitment to build the infrastructure of the 21st century with $7.15 million for local infrastructure projects. Importantly, this investment will be geared towards enhancing our local economy, driving jobs growth and greater private investment in our region. As per our election commitment, we are providing $1 million to commence the Tuggerah Sports Precinct—a project that will deliver economic benefits to the Central Coast through increased sports tourism and, importantly, more jobs. The Tuggerah Sports Precinct will not only enable the hosting of regional and national sporting events; it will also provide local sporting clubs access to high-quality sports fields and facilities for local competitions. Our investment has been welcomed by local sporting organisations. Mr Ian Robilliard, Managing Director of the Central Coast Academy of Sport, welcomed our commitment, stating: 'The Tuggerah Sports Precinct is a much needed facility for the region and is well overdue.' Country Rugby League Infrastructure and Game Development Officer Mr Graham Boland endorsed this project stating: 'The development of this facility will allow for large-scale events and add immeasurably to the economic, social and health benefits of the Central Coast Community.' As the member for Dobell, this investment will help realise my determination for Dobell to become the sports tourism capital of New South Wales. In addition to supporting sports tourism, it is vital that we invest in and enhance existing infrastructure to support our local economy. The Norah Head boat ramp is Dobell's only sea access boat ramp. The boat ramp plays a vital role in supporting our tourist economy, drawing locals and visitors alike to our magnificent beaches and coastline. Our $700,000 investment will enable Wyong Shire Council to complete necessary repair work on this $3.25 million project. The Mayor of Wyong Shire Council, Councillor Doug Eaton, recently congratulated the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Jamie Briggs, for visiting Norah Head in April to sign the funding agreement. The fact that the minister was able to observe firsthand the difference this money will make to the community, who will now be able to enjoy a safe, accessible and functioning boat ramp, was invaluable. Investment in infrastructure is key to addressing our future growth needs. It is anticipated that the Central Coast will grow by an additional 100,000 people by 2031, requiring 45,000 new local jobs. The growth area largely falls within the Dobell electorate; therefore, as a government, it is crucial that we work with state and local governments to effectively meet growth in infrastructure demands. Our growth plan for the Central Coast addresses this need by providing funding for the Ridgeway and Jensen roads—two roads under pressure as a result of our rapid population growth. Our $2.75 million investment will enhance the safety and quality of these roads, affording motorists safer access to the growth suburbs of Lisarow and Ourimbah via the Ridgeway, and the lakeside suburbs of Tuggerawong and Wyongah via Jensen Road. Investment in Central Coast roads is part of this government's commitment to provide necessary infrastructure to support commuter access to employment. In addition to these local road projects, the government will deliver substantial investment to ease the commute for the 30,000-plus Central Coast residents who travel daily outside the region for employment. After years of talk, this government will build the NorthConnex, delivering the missing link between the M1 and M2. NorthConnex is a significant project for the Central Coast and for the people of Dobell. But this is about more than reducing travel times; this is also importantly about investment and jobs. The budget commits $195.8 million for the M1 Productivity Package. This funding includes the widening of the Ml to six lanes between the Tuggerah and Doyalson interchanges. Together with the NorthConnex, these measures will deliver shorter and safer travelling options for Central Coast commuters, meaning they spend less time in traffic and more time with their families. While this infrastructure assists those who commute for work, we must remain steadfast in our determination to strengthen the local economy and provide a broader range of job opportunities in Dobell. For too long our region has suffered an unemployment rate well above the national average. Coupled with low school completion rates and under-representation in tertiary education, it is crucial that we encourage and assist people to earn or learn. This government is delivering on its commitment of $2.7 million towards the development of skills and training facilities in Dobell to enable our young people to learn in order to earn. Changes to welfare payment eligibility will strengthen the incentive for young unemployed people to work or pursue education and training opportunities. Mature job seekers will also benefit from this government's initiatives to encourage workforce participation. Restart aims at assisting those over 50 who have been receiving income support for over six months. Employers will receive a $10,000 incentive to employ a person aged 50 and over for up to two years. Potentially, this could benefit approximately 1,100 people in Dobell. Together with the government's Job Commitment Bonus and Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job, job seekers should feel secure in pursuing employment opportunities. The best form of welfare is work and, where people are able to work, they should be encouraged and supported to do so. The higher education initiatives outlined in the budget support alternative pathways to higher education by providing direct financial support to all students studying diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degree courses. For young people in Dobell this means, for the first time, those studying a diploma through TAFE will receive the same financial assistance from the government as a student studying a bachelor degree at university. The government will establish a Commonwealth scholarship scheme to assist disadvantaged students by providing support and encouragement to undertake tertiary education. Undergraduate students will no longer have to pay fees to access FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP. I acknowledge that not all young people choose to study at university and those who chose to undertake an apprenticeship should equally be supported. The introduction of Trade Support Loans for apprentices will encourage more young people to undertake a trade and importantly complete their trade. Apprentices will have access to $20,000 over the entire period of their training. Apprentices who successfully complete their training will be rewarded with a 20 per cent reduction from the total of their loan. Like the HELP loans for tertiary students, the loans will be repayable once apprentices are earning a sustainable income. This is real support for apprentices which will provide a stronger incentive for young Australians to complete their apprenticeship and for many the opportunity to start their own business. Small business is the backbone of the Dobell economy—collectively, they are our largest employer—therefore support for small business is essential in enhancing local job opportunities. The budget contains a series of measures that will assist small business operators, including the establishment of the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will act as a one-stop-shop for small business when dealing with the federal government, thus reducing compliance costs and red tape. This enables small businesses to get on with the job of attending to their customers, to improve their productivity and to grow, generating greater job opportunities. The former Labor government failed Australian small business, inter alia imposing the world's biggest carbon tax, which drove up costs and destroyed jobs. We are providing real assistance to small business. We are abolishing the carbon tax and reducing the burden of unnecessary red tape and we demonstrated this through parliament's first-ever regulation repeal day, which we held on 26 March this year. Small businesses will play a key part in the Abbott government's Economic Action Strategy to build a strong and prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia. Above all else, this budget delivers on our election commitments. In Dobell this includes $3.3 million to clean up and improve the water quality of Tuggerah Lakes. The Tuggerah Lakes Estuary Management Plan will receive this funding over three years to improve the water quality by expanding the upgrade of stormwater treatment zones, including the removal of sediment and other organic matter and the upgrading of gross pollutant traps. The main aim of this plan is to provide direction for the ongoing management of Tuggerah Lakes and its catchment in order to ensure the sustainability of its ecological systems. The people of Dobell care about Tuggerah Lakes, and this funding is an important part of this government's commitment to a healthier environment. Dobell will directly benefit from the Green Army program. In Dobell, the program will improve our local environment by providing funds for dune restoration and rehabilitation at The Entrance North, along with practical environmental works to clean up the Tuggerah Lakes foreshore and enhance the Central Coast wetlands. In addition to providing support for our natural environment, the Green Army program supports Dobell job seekers through providing opportunities for young people to gain training and experience in areas of environmental and heritage conservation, and to explore careers in conservation management. The Green Army will be Australia's largest-ever team supporting environmental action across the country, building to 15,000 young Australians by 2018. We have the plan to fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster. While this has been a tough budget, it is also a visionary budget which delivers on the commitments we took to the Australian people at the last election. First and foremost, we said that we would get the budget back on track, invest in job-creating infrastructure, and support local small business and job creation. We are doing what we said we would do, and we are doing it because it is absolutely necessary for the long-term welfare of our great nation. This budget lays the foundation for a stronger economy by reducing projected debt by almost $300 billion over the next decade. Our economic action strategy will build a strong, prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia. This budget delivers for Australia and it delivers for Dobell. This budget is building a strong foundation for all Australians to get ahead. As I stated in my maiden speech, a stronger economy is the key to almost everything we wish for as a community. I am pleased to be delivering on our election commitments to build a more prosperous Dobell and a more prosperous Australia. 19:16 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin In thinking about what I would say about this budget in the debate on the appropriation bills, I did not really know where to start because it is just all so bad. But I want to stand up for the people of my electorate of Franklin and for the people of Tasmania. This budget is a terrible list of broken promises and wrong priorities. In fact, it is built on broken promises. It is asking the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our communities to do the heavy lifting. The budget emergency touted by those opposite is not real. They doubled the deficit in their first six months in office. And it is about wrong priorities, because they have also got their rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme—which, admittedly, they have watered down a bit, but which is still there and is $50,000 for wealthy people in our community. Those opposite have manufactured their own budget crisis with this budget because people out there are frightened and scared. They are not spending money and they are not going to the GP. They are not doing these things because they have been frightened by this budget and the harsh cuts that will affect pensioners, families, young people, students—all of them on low incomes; many of them vulnerable and disadvantaged. Australia has a AAA credit rating, which we heard the Prime Minister actually admit to today, and we have low levels of debt compared to other countries. So there is no real budget emergency, other than the one that those opposite have confected. The priorities are so wrong in this budget. The Prime Minister promised before the election that there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS. He also promised no new taxes and no tax increases. And of course all of those promises have been broken. Particularly frightening for my home state of Tasmania are the cuts to health and education. In the budget papers, page 7 of the glossy says that $80 billion in savings will be made. They will be taken away from Australian schools and hospitals over the next 10 years. We have even heard that this money is not real. But it is actually in their budget papers, so I am assuming it was real if they are making it a saving. Tasmania's share of this is more than $1.6 billion. The Tasmanian state budget is around $5 billion per annum. I am not quite sure where the Prime Minister expects Tasmania to find $1.6 billion or more over the next decade. There is $676 million in cuts to education—the Gonski reforms that were going to happen in years 5 and 6. That is money ripped out of every school in Tasmania and many schools in regional parts of my state. There is over $1 billion in health being cut. This will impact on hospitals in Tasmania. Some of these cuts of course start on 1 July this year and will indeed hurt many Tasmanians. In fact, this budget is so bad for Tasmania that it has actually made many of the front pages. It has even made editorials. When you have newspapers in Tasmania saying things like, 'The states face the ugly political prospect of savagely cutting health and education services or looking for more revenue, and the most obvious revenue stream for states and territories is to increase the GST or to broaden its base,' you know the states are in trouble. Of course, we heard there would be no changes to the GST from the Prime Minister as well. Tasmania would be severely impacted if there were a change to the distribution of the GST to the tune of more than $700 million each and every year. The Premier of Tasmania, Will Hodgman, has said in response that if there are increased demands placed on the state of Tasmania there will need to be commensurate support services provided. Of course there will not be any. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have simply said: 'That's it. The states can deal with it on their own as they should.' But where exactly will the money come from? Are the states and territories going to have to make cuts to health and education right across the country? They have not only broken a promise that there would be no cuts to health and education; they have also left a real funding dilemma for the state. It is in fact a massive problem right across the country. Then of course there is the GP tax—$7 to visit a GP, $7 to get a blood test, $7 if you need an X-ray, $7 to vaccinate each of your kids each time they need it—and prescriptions for medicines are going up as well. This is after we heard, that there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education and no changes to pensions. They have broken their promise to Tasmanians and they have broken their promise to Australians. To say one thing before an election and do a different thing afterwards—of course we have heard it before—should not occur and now Tasmanians are paying the price for this. The budget will be way too much pain for Tasmanians and very little gain for the state. In fact, there is nothing new in this budget for Tasmania. All I can find is a $100 million cut to the funding of the Midland Highway. Under Labor there was $500 million over 10 years and now there is only $400 million. That is a cut of $100 million in infrastructure for Tasmania. There are no new announcements just reannouncements, as we saw from the Prime Minister when he was in the state last week. Of course, we did hear something else from the Prime Minister when he was in Tasmania last week. We heard him say, 'It would not be the worst outcome in the world if young unemployed Tasmanians have to leave the state.' Also we heard from him, 'I don't think we should be necessarily heartbroken just because some people choose to leave.' So in Tasmania it has become learn, earn or leave. Apparently, it is okay that there are no jobs for Tasmanians in Tasmania and we really should not be heartbroken about it. Interestingly, the federal Department of Employment predicts there will be 11,400 new jobs in Tasmania by 2017. In that same period, 21,000 students are expected to leave school. That is 21,000 students for 11,400 new jobs. So the jobs are not there. We need places in training for them. Are there places available in TAFE? Are there places available in the university in regional Tasmania? We have heard the Minister for Employment, who happens to be a Tasmanian, Senator Abetz, say,' Of course, they could go and pick fruit.' Actually what he said was: There are many examples of jobs in my home state of Tasmania, for example fruit picking … Interestingly, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association do not really like that idea and they are going to take it up with the minister. They have said: If the Government wants us to be babysitters and to run these social welfare programs we will have a conversation about what's involved in that, but it won't be as a part of a commercial offering. The youth unemployment rate in Tasmania is 17 per cent. Up on the north-west coast it is 22 per cent. There are no jobs for these people, and to expect them to live on fresh air for six months every year that they do not have a job is cruel and heartless and will increase poverty and homelessness in Tasmania. To have the Prime Minister simply come down and say, 'Well, you can leave,' is not okay. There is supposed to be a $100 million jobs and growth program with 31 projects for 2½ thousand jobs that was announced by Labor and that was supposed to be committed by the new government. Only five of those projects have received the funding. There was $100 million over four years. Where is the rest of the money? Where are the plans to create jobs in Tasmania? There are none. Instead, we are attacking the most vulnerable. We are taking $100 million out of infrastructure and we are not going to deliver the jobs and growth plan, but that is all right: Tasmanians can just leave. People are not going to leave Tasmania. People all over the country are not going to leave regional Australia and move to the cities. Labor support the regions, even if the current government does not. We would invest in the regions and we did under the regional development fund. We have seen that program gutted as well. We have seen the indexation of financial assistance grants taken from councils. That is a $1 billion cut over four years. Councils will have to absorb these cuts. They had not budgeted for the loss of indexation over the four years. This will be an ongoing cut to councils in regional Australia. My home state of Tasmania will be hit hard by these. There is so much in this budget that needs addressing that, as I said at the beginning, it is hard to know where to start. The coalition kept saying there would be no changes to pensions. We heard those opposite say today in the parliament: 'Pensions will continue to go up under us. There's nothing to worry about.' Why do the budget papers include a saving for pensions in the out years? There is a saving because they are changing the indexation, which is a cut in real terms to pensions. We also see that from 1 July this year the concessions that are paid to the states to deliver concessions on water, electricity, local council rates and transport are being cut. In my home state of Tasmania that is $9 million from 1 July that the state government does not have and has not said whether it will make up. Councils are about to send out rates notices. Do they include a concession for ratepayers when those notices go out in two weeks? Who would know? 'It is not my problem,' says the Treasurer; 'It is up to the states.' It is a problem for the pensioners. He is the Treasurer of this country and he should be taking notice, because these pensioners are frightened. They have been frightened by this budget and by the actions of this government. It is not fair. I think that is the overwhelming theme of this budget: it is not fair. It is not fair because the wealthy are doing less of the lifting and those people on low incomes are doing the majority of the lifting. When you have somebody on $200,000 a year actually committing $400 in an extra debt tax and you have people on $60,000 with two kids giving up over $6,000 a year in family payments, you know something is not right. We heard today that families will be affected by changes to family tax benefit. In fact, 1.5 million children will be affected by this government's changes. It does not stop there. The changes to the pension include having to work until you are 70. I wonder whether they ever actually asked people what they thought of this—whether they asked the tradesmen, the nurses or the brickies labourers. I do not think they would have, because they cannot work until they are 70. They cannot work until they are 70 because they are in heavy labour jobs. Perhaps they should just retrain and do something else. I am sure that will be the answer that comes from those opposite. We have also seen savage cuts to the public sector in this budget. Tasmania does have a number of public sector jobs, particularly in the science areas of CSIRO and the Australian Antarctic Division. CSIRO are particularly concerned about cuts that might be coming their way. Of course there is the ABC, who have the one per cent efficiency dividend coming off them. That will mean cuts in regional Australia and in my home state of Tasmania. So all we in Tasmania hear with this budget is cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts. There is nothing new. There is no extra funding. In fact, if it gets bad enough you can do what the Prime Minister says: 'Just leave.' That is the only solution we have had from the new government. There is absolutely nothing in this budget for Tasmania. Labor will be opposing these measures. We will be opposing changes to pensions, we will be opposing changes to family payments and, of course, we will be opposing the fuel excise increase as well. That was another nice surprise for people which they knew nothing about! No new taxes before the election; an increase in tax after the election. Who would have thought that that would occur? I want to read an email from one of my constituents. I will not name her but you will get the general gist from the email about how Tasmanians are feeling about this budget: I am writing you to encourage you to stand up against the threats to the most vulnerable members of our community by the plans outlined in the Abbott government's budget. Why are we buying new jet fighters and giving tax breaks to big business while making it more and more difficult for the poorest to have the basic necessities of life? Cutting bulk-billing for children and pensioners is not just a $7 impost. I am a pensioner. Recently I went to the doctor, who sent me for blood tests and then called me back because of some abnormalities, which led to new blood tests and an ultrasound. Then I had to go back to the doctor to get the results. These changes would have meant an extra $42 for me within a two-week period. I would not have spent that $42 on a beer, a cigarette or a cigar. It probably would have gone towards my power bill or on food. I am however more concerned that children will not receive the medical care they need because some parents must decide between food or medical treatment. In Tasmania there is great youth unemployment, but maybe some do not want to work. However, most cannot find work. With no Newstart until they reach 30 we are going to see a rise in the number of youth homelessness. Surely the lucky country can do better than this. 19:32 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson It is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and the cognate bills. It is a shame that all the the member for Franklin said is that all Tasmanians are hearing is cuts, cuts, cuts. Perhaps that is because she is the one out there spreading that message, rather than some of the good things in the budget for Tasmania, particularly the nearly $40 million for the Hobart International Airport runway extension and also the numerous tourism projects that will be happening throughout Tasmania. I note that they criticised some of the tourism projects—for instance, the one to extend the tours of the Cadbury factory. An honourable member interjecting— Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 You certainly did criticise it. You claimed it was a rort and all the rest of it. The reality is that that was a tourism benefit for Tasmania which the Labor Party were opposed to, so shame on them. I want to speak on the appropriation bills. These bills are really the mop and bucket that we have with this budget. They are the broom, the scrubbing brush and the dustpan which are required to clean up the mess left behind by six years of Labor waste and incompetence. There is a well-established political cycle in this country. A Labor government comes in and takes a perfectly good economy and a perfectly good budget and goes about trashing them. That is what we saw throughout the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd debacle—waste and incompetence. They threw money around, hoping that if they gave away enough free money they would have more people voting for them. Eventually people saw through that. They saw that Labor was breaking the bank, trashing the house and booking up the bills to a credit that would be paid by the next generation. The Australian people took out some of the trash on election night. It was a pretty full wheelie bin that night. We all know that even after the wheelie bin was emptied by the electoral garbage truck the house would still be left in somewhat of a mess. That is why the Liberal-National government made sombre commitments to the Australian people before the election. We promised we would stop the boats, a problem created by Labor and the Greens when they were in office. We have fixed it already with our policies, which Labor and the Greens said would not work. We are stopping the boats, even though the rudderless Leader of the Opposition cannot bring himself to admit it. We promised we would axe the carbon tax. That is an easy promise we thought we would be able to achieve by now. You would think we would be able to achieve it, particularly given that the Labor Party—and we have members of the Labor Party opposite smiling and laughing about it—promised themselves in their flyers that they were going to scrap the carbon tax. In fact, they said it had been scrapped. But now, no, they are voting against scrapping it. They are clinging onto the carbon tax in the Senate like a one-year-old clinging onto its gran's security blanket. Most importantly, we promised that we would clean up Labor's mess by getting the budget back under control. That is what we are doing, even though Labor is doing its best to hamper the clean-up crew. We promised that we were going to build the roads and infrastructure of the 21st century. Of all of the measures outlined in this budget, the unprecedented investment in infrastructure is what will help my electorate the most. Of all the feedback that I have ever received as a member of parliament, through emails, phone calls, letters and talking to people face-to-face in the street and at different events, by far the biggest issue and the most raised issue is the Bruce Highway, followed closely by the local roads in general. Queensland is a very large state. Our road network is critical—particularly, the new 1,700 kilometres of the Bruce Highway, which is a major arterial road connecting all the coastal regions. The Bruce Highway package, the $6.7 billion that we are going to invest—and a lot of that funding is contained over the forward estimates as outlined in the budget—includes projects like the Mackay ring road. The Mackay ring road is an interesting infrastructure piece because Labor talked about it a lot when they were in power but they never did anything about it. They actually tried to tell the public that it was in the budget, but when we went through the figures it was not. In fact, that was exposed in Senate estimates at the end of the Gillard road, when Senator Ian Macdonald actually questioned the head of Regional Development Australia about it and what was there for it. We found out that nothing was actually allocated to the Mackay ring road. This budget includes the dollars—over half a billion dollars—and it includes the dates. In 2016 we are going to start construction. That is what people want to know. We have $20 million from the federal government and another $5 million from the states to do the detailed planning and preservation. There is actually $11 million in the budget for 2014-15. We have $428 million that is going to go to that $540 million total, with some state funds, to do the construction of stage 1 of the Mackay ring road. That is going to be vitally important for the Mackay area. It is going to be the largest piece of infrastructure we have ever seen in that area, and it is going to lift the local economy in leaps and bounds. We have had a downturn in the mining sector—thank you very much, Labor Party, partly because of your carbon tax and your mining tax—but now, on the back of that downturn, we are able to offer this big infrastructure project and get all the construction jobs flowing from that. In the northern part of my electorate, the Sandy Gully Bridge is another important piece of infrastructure. It floods every time we get a bit of rain in the Bowen area. There is a $46 million federal contribution to that $57 million project that is going to get some state funds as well. This year there is $2.5 million allocated for the detailed design work. Yellow Gin Creek Bridge, also in the north of my electorate, will get a $36 million federal contribution, along with some state funds. There will be up to $45 million to upgrade that bridge and flood-proof it. Again, for the detailed design work there is $4 million in this federal budget for 2014-15. The rest of it for both those projects, Sandy Gully and Yellow Gin, will be in the outlying years of the forward estimates. Also completing work in this coming financial year is the Vantassel Street to Cluden duplication in the Townsville end of my electorate, and a minor upgrade to the Burdekin Bridge, which is definitely something that is needed. There will be continuing funds for fixing up black spots and increasing overtaking lanes. That is vitally important but there are also other local projects that the Liberal-National government is delivering on in my electorate. We are shifting the junior soccer grounds and assisting in that exercise with a $1 million contribution. It is a million dollars that the Labor Party promised back in 2010—2010, and yet it never, ever happened. Guess what? We are now delivering it, because the program that they were going to fund it out of had wound up, so we have gone and found additional money in the budget to keep that project alive. The Mackay gymnastics centre will be given an upgrade, creating a new extension to their existing premises with $750,000. We will have mobile CCTV units given to the local council with assistance of $200,000. We are going to light up some of the inner city car parks with an extra $200,000 to make them safer for late-night shoppers and workers who leave at night. There are Green Army projects that are doing excellent work with the Eco Barge in the Whitsundays and also work on the Don River. North Queensland is the economic engine room of this country. We make a major contribution to the economy through agriculture, tourism and mining. Regional centres like Mackay service the mining projects of Central Queensland, in particular the Bowen Basin. Skills training and education are an important part of providing that service through trades learning and through universities. While the 400-kilometre long electorate of Dawson does not technically include a university at this stage, we do have many full-time students as residents. CQ University's Mackay campus is only a few hundred metres from the southern boundary of the electorate and James Cook University is only a few hundred metres from our northern boundary. And students in North Queensland, who are probably less exposed to the lies, deceit and the exaggeration in the southern media, are scratching their heads when they see Bill Shorten's protégés in the far left movement bashing police and squealing into a microphone about how no-one will be able to afford to go to university anymore. The students who actually took the time to educate themselves, instead of just printing out the union lines, listening to the Leader of the Opposition and then taking to the streets to chant the misinformation to the TV cameras, know that anyone can afford to go to university. No-one has to pay their portion of university expenses up-front—although they do have to pay their compulsory union fees up-front, which the other side brought in. No-one has to start repaying their student loans until they start earning more than $50,000 a year. That is pretty fair. That has got to be fair in anyone's books. When you take into consideration the higher incomes earned by university graduates—around 75 per cent more than a nongraduate—paying half the course fees is a pretty darn good investment. You do not have to put your money down until the investment starts paying dividends. The 'I want everything for free' sense of entitlement from the students we see revolting in the streets must come across as even more revolting to the hairdressers, the waitresses, the mechanics, and all the other non-university graduates who have to contribute through their tax dollars to university education. The protesting students are not happy about only half of their university fees being paid by those lower paid workers. This budget does not stop anyone from going to university. In fact, it encourages more people to take on further education through subbachelor training by giving them access to the same system of student loans as university students. Further, education providers will be required to divert 20 per cent of any additional revenue they receive from deregulation for student places to Commonwealth scholarships and other support for disadvantaged students. Those Commonwealth scholarships will create major new support for regional students to go to university. I am proud to say students in North Queensland have not been led astray by the hype and hysteria propagated by the opposition leader. All the bleating in the world will not turn Labor's scurrilous lies about education, health and pensioners into reality. Hysteria about cuts from those opposite could easily have been hosed down by reading the budget. Even comparing it with Labor's last budget and forward estimates this budget, represented by these bills, actually increases school funding to record highs. This Liberal-National budget invests record recurrent funding of $64½ billion in government and non-government schools over the next four years—that is, $1.2 billion more than the previous government would have spent over the forward estimates—to ensure schools in all states and territories receive extra funding. It is a similar story in health, where the campaign of deceit from the Labor Party runs contrary to the facts. The facts, which show that funding to states for hospital services increases by more than nine per cent, or $1.3 billion a year, next year; in 2015-16, by more than nine per cent, or $1.4 billion, a year; in 2016-17, by more than nine per cent, or $1½ billion, a year. In 2017-18, it goes up by more than six per cent, or $1.1 billion, a year. In Queensland, hospital funding will increase each year, from $3.1 billion in 2014-15 to $3.8 billion in 2017-18. Even more scurrilous are the lies that have been told about pension cuts. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame for the way they have scared pensioners with their alarmist campaign of deceit. The pension will continue to rise twice a year every year. Poor old pensioners are being wheeled out and taken for a ride by all those opposite. The way that Labor and the Greens kick the pensioners around like a political football says a lot about how they treat the generation that created the wealth that Labor squandered. None of those opposite—not one—has mentioned the fact that they are blocking the repeal of the carbon tax, which is the most unnecessary impost on every household and family, including pensioners. This campaign of deceit and lies about the budget has scared pensioners, it has incited violence amongst the students and it has distracted people from what is really important: getting this budget back under control while we still actually can. These bills and this budget delivers on that most important promise we made to the Australian people. I commend the bills to the House. 19:47 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Cuts, cuts, cuts! That is all you see when you read through these appropriation bills. In fact, I tallied the number of cuts in these appropriation bills that we are debating tonight, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-15 and cognate bills—126 government programs receive funding cuts from this government. It is a series of broken election commitments. The Prime Minister said a couple of days before the election that there would be, no cuts to health or education, no changes to pensions, no cuts to the ABC or SBS. Here we have it in the first budget of the Abbott government, completely breaking that promise that was made to the Australian public—a complete breach of faith and trust with the Australian community on one of the most important objects of government, the delivery of a budget. These bills absolutely decimate and destroy all those commitments, a complete breach of trust with the Australian people. More importantly, they make life tougher, harder for families, pensioners, single mums and students living in my community. Labor will not vote against these bills. Unlike those opposite, we respect the conventions of the Australian Constitution, in particular, that oppositions should not block supply. It is not the fault of public servants throughout Australia, who have mortgages and families to feed, that this lousy budget is presented to the parliament. They should not suffer by an opposition blocking supply and refusing payments for the ordinary appropriations of government, most notably ensuring that public servants get paid. But we will point out the gross inequalities, the deficiencies and the unfairness of this budget when it comes to pensioners, families, students and single mums. In education, $60 million in federal grants will be cut by these appropriation bills, part of $236 million worth of cuts overall—programs such as the Digital Education Revolution, providing laptops and computer access for kids in schools; and More Support for Students with Disabilities, a program that very importantly provides that much-needed in-classroom assistance for kids with disabilities. Two weeks ago, I met a young family in my community that had two kids with disabilities—two kids in primary school with disabilities. They were in a very small public school that has a 60 per cent Indigenous population. I just keep thinking to myself—and it keeps me up at night to think—what that poor family is going to have to go through because of this government's cuts to the education portfolio. We all know, and we have all seen the studies, about how important early intervention is in ensuring that students with disabilities get the best start on an education and the best start at the ability to participate in society. To cut funding for a particular program, the More Support for Students with Disabilities program, which is a $100 million cut, and not replace it with the Gonski loadings for kids with disabilities is almost criminal. It is an absolute disgrace. David Gonski made a very important point in a very important speech last week criticising the government for the approach that they are taking in the funding of schools. The point that David Gonski made was that it is not just the level of funding in school education that is important. What is also very important is where the funding is going and what the funding is targeted towards. In Australia at the moment we are seeing students fall further and further behind in international comparisons. Why? It is not because of the students at the high end. Our very talented students in wealthy schools are doing very well. They are above, or at, international comparisons. It is our kids in low-socioeconomic areas, our kids from an Indigenous background, our kids with disabilities and, our kids from non-English speaking backgrounds who are the ones struggling in schools. They are the ones who the Gonski funding would specifically target. That is the point that David Gonski was making. It is not simply about the overall amount of the pie but it is about where the pie is allocated. This budget is a dud because it does not fund the Gonski reforms in the fifth and sixth years. A $38.4 million cut for an online diagnostic tool program, to help teachers assess the learning and assessment outcomes under NAPLAN, has been cut under these bills. It comes on top of the Schoolkids Bonus being cut, a with vital support for families on family tax benefits to ensure that their kids can meet the costs of going to school. These are unfair outcomes in education. They are unfair and will leave our kids, particularly some in my community, much worse off. The Prime Minister made a commitment a couple days before the election that there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS budgets. But that is exactly what we have seen in these appropriation bills—$43.5 million cut from the ABC and from SBS and the abolition of the Australia Network, representing a $196.8 million cut. People in my electorate are particularly angry about this cut to funding for the ABC and SBS, particularly because of the commitment that was given by the Prime Minister a couple of days before the election. Close to 9,000 constituents in my community have signed a petition opposing the cuts to the ABC and SBS because they believe in a well-funded, independent public broadcaster as the hallmark of a modern, healthy democracy. The ABC Managing Director, Mark Scott, has pointed out this week that, unfortunately, because of these funding cuts there will be redundancies and there will be closure of services. That will affect rural and regional communities. That will mean that the broadcasting services that are delivered to rural and regional Australia will be cut by this government's callous approach to communications. In the arts budget, $87.1 million has been cut from arts programs—in particular, funding for the Australia Council and Screen Australia. Some may not believe that arts funding is important, but I do. Arts is the carrier of Australian culture. Arts is the way we tell the story about who we are—about our history, our heritage, our place in the world and the sort of society we live in. To callously cut this particular element of the budget through these appropriation bills is not in our nation's interest. In the environment, $483 million is being cut from Landcare initiatives, putting the future of Landcare at risk. What will this mean for Landcare? What will it mean for people who have been employed under that wonderful program that has achieved so much in conservation for communities such as mine—particularly along the coastline—over many, many years? We do not know, because that funding cut has put the lives and welfare of many of those employees at risk. These appropriation bills foreshadow $7.6 billion in cuts over the forward estimates to Australia's overseas development aid commitment. I recently travelled around the Pacific with the foreign minister, Julie Bishop. She gave a clear commitment to the leaders of the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Nauru: no cuts to the overseas development aid budget for our friends in the Pacific. Then MYEFO was released, and then the budget was released, and what do we find? That is exactly what has occurred under this government. They have cut funding for overseas development aid. That funds programs such as the Vanuatu Women's Centre that I visited with the foreign minister, which is providing important support for women living with domestic violence, important support for education and important support for immunisation and health outcomes in those communities. We do not know where those cuts are going to come from. We do not know which particular programs are going to be cut. I call on the foreign minister and the Prime Minister to at least have the decency—at least have the gumption—to outline to our friends in the Pacific which of their programs that are importantly funded and supported by Australian aid are going to be cut. Are any of those programs going to be health programs? Are they going to be education programs? Are they going to be programs such as Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development? The leaders of those nations and our friends in the Pacific deserve to know. This government has taken a disgraceful approach to international climate change initiatives. It is one of the key and most pressing issues facing the world economy, and what is Australia's view? We will pull out of all international climate change initiatives. What we are saying, particularly to the Asia-Pacific community, where we are a leading economy and a leading society, is that climate change does not matter; that climate change initiatives and clean energy initiatives do not matter. What sort of a message does that send to our friends in the Pacific and Asia about this nation's approach to climate change? In the Pacific, climate change is not a looming threat; it is a present danger, and we are seeing already the effects on communities, particularly in low-lying states such as Kiribati, Vanuatu, Nauru and the Marshall Islands. We are seeing people being displaced because of climate change already, and what is Australia's approach? We have pulled out of those international initiatives. Recently, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, Tony deBrum, said this about Australia and its government: Australia has always been our friend, but the change in their government last year has resulted in problems. That is extraordinary. That is the view of the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands. In diplomacy, words such as those are very powerful. That is the view that our friends in the Pacific have of the Australian nation—that we have let them down and ignored them when it comes to the crises they are facing relating to climate change. We are ignoring that their crops are drying up, their infrastructure is being inundated, they are not receiving any rain anymore in particular regions and, importantly, they cannot feed themselves. We are sending the wrong message, and it is enshrined in these bills that we are taking the wrong approach when it comes to overseas development aid. We will continue to hold the government to account for the disgraceful approach that they have taken on overseas development aid. All of these measures have been put in the budget on the basis of a confected budget emergency. The government is out there campaigning and scaring the public into believing that there is a budget crisis in Australia. I pose this question to the government: how on earth does a nation achieve three AAA credit ratings from independent ratings agencies when you have a budget crisis? We are one of only 10 nations throughout the world that have a AAA credit rating and I do not see any of those other nine nations having newspaper headlines or discussions within their national parliaments about a budget crisis. There simply is not one in Australia, and for this government to go out and claim that there is, to add $68 billion worth of expenditure to government programs and then claim that there is a budget emergency and have to cut to the bone on programs such as Medicare, health and education, and pensions, is an absolute disgrace. It is the wrong approach to be taking with the Australian public. Labor have said that we understand the need to ensure that the budget is sustainable. When in government we took an approach that ensured that our budget was sustainable and met the Charter of Budget Honesty commitments to run surpluses over the medium to long term. We did that by ensuring that we had sufficient revenue coming into the budget, and that meant that there was a minerals resource rent tax, that meant there was a price on carbon, that meant that we means-tested the private health insurance rebate and that meant that we were proposing to tax people with whopping superannuation accounts of more than $2 million earning more than $100,000 a year. It also meant that we were not undertaking outrageous expenditure like an overrated paid parental leave scheme, like direct action, which has got no funding source at all in the provision of subsidies to polluting companies, and like some of the changes to veterans' pensions being introduced by this government. Labor had a plan for sustainability in our budget and it did not involve the cuts that are being undertaken in these appropriation bills. It is a disgrace that this government has put them forward in this budget. Debate adjourned. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 4296 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Budget 4296 20:02 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I would like to continue on a theme that I raised earlier today. In doing so I will put on the record once again that Shortland electorate is one of the oldest electorates in this country. We have many senior Australians and the proportion of residents in the Shortland electorate over the age of 65 is 26 per cent, which is well above the national average. I acknowledge the fantastic work that all the seniors that I represent in this parliament do throughout the community, and for that matter all the seniors throughout Australia. Quite often senior Australians are stereotyped as not having anything that they can contribute to our society, as being a burden, as being a drain on our economy, as being people who are not worthy of the support of us in this place. Over the last month many seniors have contacted my office and shared their thoughts with me on this very topic. Prior to the budget my office was inundated with people ringing and saying how worried they were about the reports they had been reading in the papers, how worried they were that they were going to end up a lot worse off than they were at the moment and how basically they are living week to week and that they feel they have made enormous contributions to our country. They are not asking for much. They are just asking that they be able to maintain the standard of living they have now. They are asking that the government recognises that they have made their contribution. They have worked hard. They have paid their taxes. Now, all they ask is to be able to see a doctor when they are sick and be able to afford to see the doctor and to be able to purchase any medication that they need and be able to afford to purchase that medication. And they are asking for a little bit of recognition of the fact that they still contribute enormously to our society and community. Within Shortland electorate, seniors and pensioners are the backbone of our volunteer network. Every organisation is run, to a large extent, by volunteers that are 65-plus. That is probably a little bit higher than the average, but at the outset I said Shortland electorate is a very old electorate. I was contacted this afternoon by a volunteer, Vicky. She and her husband, Stewart, do between them 60 hours a week volunteering at the marine rescue at Tuggerah Lakes. She pointed out to me that the economic contribution of seniors to our electorate is enormous. I had a quick search on the net and looked at a University of Adelaide study which pointed out that volunteering had been a strong tradition within Australia, and I think most members of parliament recognise the contribution that volunteers make to our communities. But I am sure that when they do that they find out that most of those people are over 65 years of age. The study pointed out that the true extent of the monetary value of volunteering in Australia is in excess of $200 billion a year and that some 6.4 million people volunteer their time in Australia. Those were 2012 figures, and it is double the number that volunteered back in 1995. I think this House must acknowledge that senior Australians—that pensioners—continue to contribute to our country and to our economy, saving us over $200 billion a year. All they ask in return for that is the knowledge that their pension is sustainable, that they will be able to visit a doctor and that their standard of living is maintained. They want to know that if they are sick they will get access to health care. They do not want to have to pay a co-payment. They want to know that they have got secure housing. Unfortunately, this budget went to the very core of their security. John, a constituent I represent, asked me to ask the Treasurer how his family would cope. I will not do that, but I will put on the record what he had to say. He is a 69-year-old retiree, and his wife will turn 60 this year. They were blessed with a child in their later years, and this child will soon be six years old. He has calculated their family income as $14,400 allocated pension and $16,518 part pension. That is including the pension supplement. This is a guy that was a tradesman who has worked all his life and has made enormous contributions to our country. He gets family tax benefit part A of $4,615 and he gets $2,657 family tax benefit part B. His total income is $38,191, and, yes, he volunteers. He also provides child care for his grandchildren whilst his older children go to work. So he is really helping the economy move along. He goes on to say that he owns his own home and he is very fortunate, but he needs to manage his finances with care and that his concerns have been heightened because of the budget, whilst acknowledging that there are many people worse off in society than he and his wife. This is the thing that always hits me: people contact me, point out their circumstances and say, 'It's really hard for me but there are people who are worse off than me.' He says that he would like to know how the Treasurer expects them to cope when their income will be reduced by the loss of the family tax payment and other associated benefits. He says that his income will be reduced to $34,302. This is a man who is very frugal, does not go out, does not smoke and does not go drinking at the club. This is a man who looks after his son, provides support to his grandchildren and volunteers in the community. He feels that he is going to be hit really hard by this budget and he does not know how he is going to cope. This is a real person who has to struggle with these financial issues each and every day. Here is a real-life example. I have had a pensioner ring me saying that she does not know how she is going to go on and feels she will have to kill herself because she will not cope. It really, really worries me. My staff have been talking with pensioners and seniors over the last month trying to reassure them and trying to make them feel better about the situation. My message to the government and my message to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister is: this budget is really hurting. It has created enormous pressure for pensioners and seniors in our community. They have made enormous contributions to Australia in the past and all they ask for now is financial security. Domestic Violence 4298 20:12 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I was invited to speak at the Baw Baw community conversation along with representatives from the Gippsland Prevention of Men's Violence Against Women Strategy. I began my address by saying: 'This is not the first time that I walk this path in speaking on the issue of violence against women. In fact, I have spoken on it many times publicly and, let me say, privately amongst my friends and colleagues.' Firstly, I was surprised there were so many there. The theatrette was full. We had representatives from the police from the family violence unit based out of Morwell and from agencies dealing with the issue, and they held a panel discussion after I spoke. I am a male standing up talking about violence against women and taking charge of my responsibilities in regard to what happens in my community of Gippsland and across Australia. Every time you speak on something like that, you learn something. Whilst I knew it was the case, I did not realise it is the tiny words and the jokes about issues and women that grow into stronger words, and become part of the culture and then part of the process. Then they become a broken eye socket, a bashed nose, smashed teeth, torn muscles, wrecked work opportunities, embarrassment and shame. I began my address on shame. That is, shame exhibited by the people—the females, in this case—who happened to be the victims. They are ashamed of themselves. Some are ashamed of themselves because they are ashamed that they got themselves in that position in the first place. Others are ashamed of themselves because of the way they end up looking or because they are told by the perpetrator that it was their fault. They believe it and this veil of shame comes over. Of course, I spoke differently at that function about shame than how I am talking to you about it now, because I have had a bit of time to think about what I said before. The second thing I spoke about was respect. There is a complete and utter lack or absence of respect for the individual who you are bashing. Violence is a considered act. It is not something that just springs out of nowhere, because I think the males that I know do not resort to violence. I have been tempted plenty of times in my life, but not in regards to women. I have been angry, but that is not where my guilt lies. My guilt lies with every other male in Australia who at some point has remained silent. At some point on that sliding scale that I talked about—of sexism, racism and other remarks—he has remained silent instead of pulling the person up and saying: 'Not on my watch, not in my area, not in my football club and not in my family. We do not do that. We do not do it. Not in our community; that is not our way.' My desire is for every man to take responsibility. This has been used so many times, until I found it a different context. It said, 'All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent.' I am not talking about the perpetrators here. I am talking about men who would never lay a hand on a woman, but what they would do is allow an inappropriate suggestion to pass. A child will pick that up like this: 'This is the respect dad has for mum. This is the respect Joe has for his girlfriend. This is the respect my elder brother has for the girls at school, if he can speak about them in this manner.' So the disrespect flows in and grows. As the member for McMillan I want a cultural change across the whole of my electorate, because on the numbers there is a whole lot of men bashing their wives in my electorate right now. Right now at 8.18, there are families being wrecked; there are children being completely distressed, who will be a mess at school tomorrow; and there are women who will not be able to go to work. The numbers and figures that I have got here are the numbers of people and the cost to this nation of men bashing women. That includes the hundreds, hundreds and hundreds of hours that they are unable to work and all those rotten excuses. I have told this story in the past. I was the employer of many women. Most of them were older women, because they had school-aged kids. They then came into our business whilst their kids were at school and stayed on. Most of my staff never left. One young girl—but I have to be careful telling that story in this context. In fact, I should withdraw from telling it, except to say that the older women knew what was going on and they looked at me as if I was a dill, because my mindset could not conceive of what was happening around my workplace. I had no concept of family violence. It is just not part of our family. It is just not on. My extended family is the same, I believe. But am I like every other male across Australia who believes that his extended family is not involved? If they are not, somebody, somewhere, is. It is not just tied into one community or one socioeconomic level of our society; it is everywhere, and it is a disgrace. How do we call on the men of Australia to be men? Because men do not bash women. Strong men do not bash women. Men who are comfortable in their own skin do not bash women. Only weak men bash women. It is a power play. It is all right to present the problem, but we need the help of good men. And I do not even see myself in the 'good' category, but I know good men. I know that we are going to need the help of the good men in the footy club, the round ball soccer club, the rugby club and the cricket club; we are going to need the help of the men in Rotary, Lions and all the other organisations you can think of. We are going to need men, in their own workplace, when they hear the story or when the dirty magazine is put up on the back of the toilet wall or when the pictures are put up—anything that demeans women or drags them down—to stamp on it then and there. Because it is not the little changes and it is not the little dirty book in the corner; it is the totality of the climb to violence. And respect—we have come to a place in this nation where respect is not No. 1, and we need that to change. Domestic Violence, Budget 4300 20:22 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Before I go on to give my speech, I just want to commend and congratulate the member for McMillan for a very, very powerful speech. The figures are breathtaking, and they are shameful. It is a national disgrace. I am not sure whether the member saw the piece in The Australian magazine on the weekend. It was an incredibly graphic piece on domestic violence. The editor of the magazine wrote in her editorial that, unfortunately, in reading that story, there was no happy ending. She said that often in pieces that they put in that magazine she likes to have a happy ending or some sort of resolution or clear sight to see how we can get out of a dreadful situation but that was not prevalent in that article. It is a national disgrace, as you say. Again, as you say, strong men do not bash women. I commend and congratulate you for the work that you are doing in your community to address and hopefully stop this issue, because as you say the figures are devastating; they are breathtaking. It is a national disgrace. Thank you so much for bringing the House's attention to it tonight. All power to you in the work that you are doing in your community to address this issue and eliminate this issue once and for all, because it is a national disgrace. So thank you so much. There is very much that I and my constituents are aggrieved about following the Abbott government's budget of broken promises. Since the budget, I have been inundated with emails, letters, phone calls and messages from Canberrans who are outraged by this budget, which they see as grossly unfair and based on lies. Everywhere I have been in Canberra since the budget, Canberrans have spoken to me about their outrage. They have told me about how this budget is going to change their lives for the worst. They have told me about their fears for their jobs, their house prices, their children's education and their futures. They have told me that they fear getting sick because they cannot afford the Medicare or pharmaceutical benefits co-payments. Over the last two weeks it has become clear to me that one of the issues Canberrans are most angry about is the cuts to higher education. Canberra is lucky enough to be home to several excellent universities, including the ANU, the University of Canberra and the Australian Catholic University. Currently, there are over 30,000 Canberrans enrolled in one of these three universities. So it is not surprising that Canberrans are passionate about this issue. There are several changes to higher education outlined in the budget, each more devastating than the next. The change that will perhaps have the greatest impact is the uncapping of university fees and the subsequent uncapping of income contingent loans, the increasing interest paid on these loans and the bringing forward of the threshold at which point payment begins—'fee deregulation', as the government calls it. What will these changes mean? Will they mean that students will be paying higher fees for their degree, paying more of those fees and paying them sooner? Fees could skyrocket, up to $120,000 to $200,000, as some have predicted. So students will graduate with even heavier debt burdens, with compound interest looming. I have said again and again in this place that education is the great transformer. Education allowed my sisters and I to escape the cycle of disadvantage. As a result of my mother's tenacity, we were allowed to finish high school, even though times were really tough. Dad had left us when I was 11 and we did not have much money. Our mother could have just sent us off to work but she was absolutely determined, dogged, to ensure that we got a tertiary education. She knew that, without education, your life was limited, your choices were limited, and that quite often you led a timid life as a result of not having an education. She was not going to have that for her girls. My mother had to leave school at 15—a daughter of a single mother who had seven kids to bring up—and go off to work. Her mother left school at 13—again, another daughter of a single mother, with 13 kids in the family and again a life of limited choice or no choice, no options, and a timid life as a result. My mother's grandmother left school at the age of about 11 or 12, and so she had very limited choices. All three of these women ended up being domestics or cleaners as a result of the fact that they had limited skills and so their choices and options in life were limited. Fortunately, it was not the path that was available to my sisters and I—thank you to my mother for her tenacity and doggedness in ensuring that we got an education, that we got through high school and that we then went on to tertiary education. As a result, I stand in this place proudly representing my wonderful community of Canberra. My middle sister is a scientist. She has her own business and is a master of wine making—one of only two or three females doing that in Australia. My little sister is a neurologist. She does stroke research in Melbourne. I am very proud of my sisters. I am very proud of their achievements. None of us would be living the lives that we are now if it were not for education. As I said, these changes are devastating for higher education. I do wonder what would happen if my sisters and I were currently approaching university age, with a single mum who was already working incredibly hard just to ensure that we finished high school. Would we still go to university knowing that we would be saddled with debts that could be up to hundreds of thousands of dollars? I cannot help but think that we would not. That is the real problem with this policy. Increased fees will put off those Australians from disadvantaged backgrounds from going to university. University will become an option only for the rich, only for the elite. These changes will also affect students who have already graduated from university. Changes to interest rates will impact their loans from 2016. So these Australians thought they were going to university under one system, but, having finished their degrees and paying off their loans, find out now that, thanks to the Abbott government, from 2016 they will be paying higher compound interest. This is deceitful and it is unfair. What will be the flow-on effects of these policies? For one thing, how is a young person ever supposed to enter the housing market if they are graduating from university with an $80,000 debt? And let us not forget that the government also scrapped the First Home Saver Account and the National Rental Affordability Scheme in this budget. So I fear that housing affordability for young people will become even more of an issue than it is today. It is not just students being faced with substantially higher debt that is a problem with these policies. These policies will also mean that the government itself is carrying a significantly higher level of debt, and the chance of students defaulting on their loans will increase. To highlight just how complicated and how unnecessary these changes are, not even the government know exactly what is going on. It has been abundantly clear from their statements over the last two weeks that neither the Prime Minister nor the education minister is fully across the detail of their policy and they have failed to grasp its complexities and its repercussions. Last week we heard the Prime Minister clearly contradicting his education minister on radio. Then he had the nerve to suggest that it is the university vice-chancellors who are confused. The Prime Minister said in a radio interview that only students who start in 2016 onwards would be affected by fee changes. However, the government's own Study Assist website says otherwise. Students enrolling in their degrees at the moment have absolutely no idea just how much they will be paying in fees. This is absolutely absurd and it is unfair. Since the budget, we have heard university vice-chancellors and others in the sector, including some in favour of deregulation, expressing their concerns. For example, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney Dr Michael Spence warned that fee deregulation risked pricing middle-class families out of a tertiary education. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide said aspects of the changes were unworkable and unduly harsh. Universities Australia Chair Professor Sandra Harding warned that changes were being rushed. There have been endless vice-chancellors commenting on this. Last week, with my ACT colleagues, I heard firsthand from ANU students about the impact of these changes, and the message was clear: students and their families are concerned and angry. They believe these changes will discourage disadvantaged students from seeking a university education. The higher education policies contained in this budget are radical and retrograde, and the sooner the Abbott government realises this the better. Budget 4302 20:32 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons I rise in grievance for the Australian people. They are living with an opposition that is in denial—an opposition that has no solutions and that offered in the budget reply speech absolutely nothing. The opposition is living in denial. After six years, Australians indeed had much to grieve about: six years of Labor; six years of waste; six years of reckless spending; $50 billion left in cash, after starting with a $20 billion surplus in 2007; spending at the fastest rate of any OECD country over the six years of the previous government; debt growing at the third fastest rate of any of the IMF countries, to peak, as Treasury have announced, at $667 billion; and deficits left over the forward estimates of $123 billion. It simply could not go on. We simply could not keep paying the mortgage on the nation's credit card with borrowed money. So we are tackling the debt and deficit legacy that has been left by the previous government. These are difficult decisions, but we are up for it. These are difficult but necessary decisions that are going to be made, not in the political interests of the Liberal Party but in the best interests and the important interests of all Australians. The budget last Tuesday was not an end in itself. It was a start in the process of putting in place the building blocks. This is the single biggest investment in infrastructure that this nation has seen: $50 billion, to be leveraged up to $125 billion with support from the states and the private sector. In response to the member for Canberra, I point to the fundamental structural reforms in higher education. These reforms open up the Australian universities. This is absolutely necessary to enable them to compete with our neighbours in Asia, who are increasingly focused on education. What is wrong? A year ago the up-front cost of going to a higher education institution for any student in Australia was zero. Next year it will still be zero. We all know that those with a tertiary education will, over their lifetime, earn nearly $1 million more. Members of the Labor Party confirmed this today. For a small contribution paid back after they hit that $50,000 point, they will earn 75 per cent more. Interest is calculated at the bank bill rate. If interest rates do change, they are capped for students at six per cent. What a great deal for students! Not only that, 80,000 more students around Australia will have the opportunity to get a tertiary education. For my home state of Tasmania, this is very welcome. Many of the regional universities are offering diploma courses, those sub-bachelor degrees. That may not be the case in Melbourne and Sydney, but in the regions that is so vital. Not only have we extended support to the non-degree courses; we have effectively extended it into the trades. For the first time those people who want to study a trade will be given the opportunity with a $20,000 loan—staggered and paid back only once they start earning at an appropriate level. Another big reform is the deregulation of university fees. You will start to see universities specialising. Yes, there will be some fees that go up—there is no doubt about that—but there will also be other universities that are able to offer courses more cheaply. That in itself will give more students the opportunity to get into higher education, to better themselves and to earn more money over the course of their lives. It is also important to remember that $1 in every $5 of increased fees that any universities charge will be going into scholarships and bursaries for people from low-SES communities. That will be legislated. It is a welcome reform. The opportunity for many more young people to have a higher education—be it in the trades, in sub-bachelor degrees or in bachelor degrees and beyond—is welcome in my state of Tasmania. It is a true reformist agenda. We are tackling a challenge here that previous governments have failed to deal with. I feel that this is something that this government will, in time, become very proud of. I will touch very briefly on the $7 co-payment. The $7 co-payment applies only to those practices that bulk-bill. Goodness knows I would love to find a bulk-billing practice close to my own home. Those people that hold a concession card will pay a maximum of $70 per year. Of the $7, $5 will be going—in addition to the federal government's contribution—to the establishment of the world's biggest medical research endowment fund. This is an area where Australia has been successful in the past and it is an area where Australia can again be successful in the future. The $2 remains with the GP. If, in his judgement, there is a genuine case that Mrs Smith or Bill Jones is unable to find the $7 for the co-contribution, it can be waived. That is at the discretion of the GPs, who know their patients better than anybody. In the time I have left I will touch briefly on a policy that is perhaps one of our more controversial but is a policy that I have been a supporter of for a very long time—the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The biggest winners will be small-business employers. For the first time they will be able to compete for high-quality female labour with their counterparts in big business and the Public Service, which already offer such facilities. Small-business employers will be the big winners. It will be low- to middle-income mums who benefit. We all know the superannuation at retirement that females have is substantially lower than that of their male counterparts. This is one measure to give them every opportunity, if they so choose, to get back into the workforce. We know that in years to come the population will age. I would remind those opposite that this was never a welfare reform; this was a productivity initiative. It was a productivity initiative designed to give mothers the very best opportunity to get back into the workforce, because we are going to need them Those opposite can stick their heads in the sand, but we are going to need them in years to come to pay for people as our population ages. As more people depend on the services the government provides, we are going to need people who can actually earn money and pay taxes because, the last time I looked, the government had no money. The government has only the money that has been earned by others in paying taxes, including businesses that pay taxes. These are genuinely important reforms that are based around delivering productivity and encouraging high-quality female labour by giving women the best opportunity to get back into the workforce to pay taxes and support those services we depend on government to provide. Finally, I joined the Liberal Party because I fundamentally believe in supporting the people in our community who are the most vulnerable. This is a budget that does exactly that. A safety net exists within these reforms that are necessary. Are they hard and difficult? Yes, they are. They are not politically savvy but they are in the best interest of the people of Australia. I strongly applaud the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister for upholding the value that as Liberals we hold dear—and that is to support those people in our community who are least able to support themselves. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 96430 I would remind members of the opposition that on both occasions that members of the opposition spoke not one interjection was made during two speeches which invited interjection. Budget 4304 20:42 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I am aggrieved on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples locally and nationally and non-Indigenous people of goodwill committed to closing the gap. On 15 March 2013 the now Prime Minister and then opposition leader declared in a speech to the Sydney Institute: Should the Coalition win the election, Aboriginal people will be at the heart of a new government, in word and in deed. The now Prime Minister's claim to be a Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs has been exposed as a pointless platitude in this budget—a mendacious mantra and a hollow homily. His budget of broken promises has gutted $534.4 million from programs run by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples which support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and those people who are assisting them across the country, from the Torres Strait to Tasmania and from the Gold Coast over to Perth. No true Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs would be so heartless about one of the most important challenges facing this nation. The Prime Minister has broken a fundamental commitment he made to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples before the election. This broken promise goes to the character of the government. He made solemn commitments to Indigenous Australians and he has not kept them. This is a Prime Minister who has form in saying one thing before an election and doing an entirely different thing afterwards. On many occasions before the 2013 election, when he was opposition leader, he promised no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to the pension and no changes to the GST. In fact, on the Sunrise program the day before the election, he said: No cuts to health, in fact health goes up. No cuts to schools, in fact schools go up. When Labor tried to warn the Australian people what the Prime Minister would do, he had the gall to say we were scaremongering. But on 13 May this year the coalition government handed down its budget, and the extent of the betrayal shocked everyone in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. They had no idea these cuts were coming. Under the sneaky cover of streamlining, the coalition's first budget does not explain where most of the $534.4 million in cuts will fall. In fact, when I looked at the press release of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Nigel Scullion, it seemed there was a massive increase in funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. In fact, there is no mention at all of the cuts I have outlined. You have to go to the budget papers—Budget Paper No. 2—to discover that $534.4 million is being cut over five years from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's allocation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. There is no mention at all in the minister's press release of the $165 million in cuts to Indigenous health; there is no mention at all of the $9.5 million in cuts to Indigenous language support programs; there is no mention at all of the $3.5 million being cut from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in North Queensland through the Torres Strait Regional Authority; and there is no mention at all about the COAG Reform Council being cut to the tune of $8.3 million over four years. The reform council reports on the Closing the Gap initiative. The lack of transparency, openness and accountability in the minister's press release shows just how sneaky and tricky the minister and the Prime Minister have been in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. Service providers across the country have been left out in the cold as a result of this, and Indigenous people and communities face an uncertain future. If the federal government does what coalition governments have done at a state level, some second-order bureaucrat will ring up in the next few weeks or months and tell a service provider in, say, Newcastle, Ipswich or Townsville, 'By the way, your funding was cut in the budget—we just forgot to mention it on 13 May in the budget speech by the Treasurer, or indeed the press release or indeed in the budget papers.' That is what happened in New South Wales, and it has happened elsewhere—in Queensland and other places. This is a budget of broken promises and bald-faced betrayals when it comes to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Prior to the election the coalition's Indigenous policy document made strong promises that there would be no cuts to Indigenous health. In fact, it said: The coalition has provided in-principle support for Closing the Gap initiatives and will maintain the funding in the budget allocated to Closing the Gap in Health. In COAG last year, in December, they stopped the funding for the national partnership arrangements in relation to Indigenous health. That expired in June last year, and we committed the funding—$777 million of federal government funding. But as a result of the decision of this government the bureaucracy has no focus on Indigenous health at all. There is no national partnership in relation to Indigenous health, so the states and territories do not have to put any dollars towards it whatsoever. In the budget we see cuts and cuts. Preventative health programs will be on the chopping block. How do we know that? Because the coalition, in its budget brought down on 13 May, cut preventative health programs by close to $400 million and the National Preventive Health Agency was abolished. Ripping $165 million out of Indigenous health programs over the next four years will have a deleterious impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—most of whom, by the way, live in cities and in regional communities up and down the Queensland and New South Wales coast. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will also be slugged with the GP tax and with the increase in the Medicare and pharmaceutical co-payments. What we will see—because it is price sensitive—is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people not necessarily consulting community controlled health services like Kambu and those run by the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health in South-East Queensland, which, according to The Australian today, is providing 'great success outcomes' with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. As a result of the mainstream programs being cut and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services being cut, we will go backwards, in all likelihood, in relation to infant mortality and longevity. The lack of commitment by this government to the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan developed in partnership with Indigenous people across the community, after extensive consultation, will mean a lack of emphasis on targets, objectives and outcomes. It will also mean fewer dollars in this space and less community control. The states with the largest number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are New South Wales and Queensland where there is the least amount of community control. What we need is greater emphasis on community control services like Kambu Medical Service, which runs in the Lockyer Valley, and other areas like that. This government is doing exactly the opposite in relation to the commitment to closing the gap. The funding should be redirected in relation to Indigenous health programs and put back into those programs. I believe Adrian Carson is a terrific CEO of the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health. If The Australian is correct today, those outcomes should be looked at and the minister should have a good chat with Adrian to see what they are doing right in South-East Queensland because that emphasis on community control, good governance, probity and integrity in governance are really what is driving those outcomes. We can see it all across South-East Queensland. The facts and the figures are in. There is no funding in this budget for the 38 children and family centres funded under the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development, which expires on 30 June this year. It means that we will go backwards. This will have a significant, detrimental impact on closing the gap. I fear that, as a result of this budget, we will see closing the gap to be a fiction in the future. The government has shown through this budget that it lacks the will, the determination and the commitment to closing the gap. Higher Education 4306 20:52 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins It surprises me that seemingly rational and sensible people have fallen for the claim that the universality of our higher education system is dead as a result of the deregulation of our higher education sector. Their well-meaning concern stems from the fact that they think the poor will somehow miss out. They are right to be concerned about the poor, but they are wrong to think that the changes made in the budget make it harder for the poor to receive access to a high-quality education and the chance at a better life. The reverse is true. For starters, Australian taxpayers—and, by the way, this is not the poor—contribute 60 per cent of the cost of the tuition fees for students. Students currently cover only 40 per cent of the cost of their education through the Higher Education Loan Program, known as HELP. Despite paying only 40 per cent of the cost of their education, students who graduate with a bachelors degree boost their earnings by more than $1 million, compared with someone who finished year 12 but has no post-school qualifications. These are not my figures, these are not the government's figures; these are the figures set out by the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, in his book Battlers and Billionaires. To make the system better reflect the benefit that each student receives and to keep it sustainable into the future, the government announced the deregulation of fees. However, this does not alter the fact that each student is still not paying the full value of their education but rather only a proportion despite that student receiving the full benefit. There well may be a fairness issue but I suspect the taxpayer would argue that it is not an issue of fairness for the student. Is student debt a barrier to access for students in Australia? According to Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon it is. She declares that the Greens will use their position of power in the Senate to stop 'the Americanisation of higher education'. But is the situation with the US analogous? The short answer is no. While the US system offers scholarships for students of merit, just as we do in Australia, the fee structure is entirely different. First, American students are not subsidised by the taxpayer. Second, American students who do not have the finance to fund their degree take out a student loan. These are commercial loans with commercial interest rates, not loans from the government with capped interest, as they are in Australia. Third, the American student starts paying back their loan when they start to earn an income. The Australian student starts paying back the loan only when they earn over $50,000, meaning that some people do not pay for their education at all or pay only a small amount. No matter what the cost of a degree, no Australian student, whether rich or poor, who has met the relevant education standard is barred from receiving an education at a registered Australian institution. In fact more students than ever before will receive a higher education as a result of our budget. While some hold the rather elitist view that higher education is all about a university education, for those who truly believe in the transformative impact of education, it is clear that diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degree courses at registered non-university higher education institutions can also improve knowledge and skills that lead to better job prospects and a more secure, satisfying life. Under the new budget arrangements the government's HELP loan scheme will apply to students wanting to undertake such study, assisting around 80,000 additional students per year to gain access to higher education. Obviously, the most disadvantaged in our community benefit most from this change, giving them access where there may have been limited or no access. It also offers even more choice to students who may not have considered this option. The deregulation of the higher education sector will see higher education institutions able to diversify and compete on both product and price. While it is true, as critics have argued, that some fees will go up, it is also true that some fees will go down. We should not aim to have all of our institutions be the same with a prescribed one-size-fits-all approach. It consigns us to educational mediocrity and limits individuals' ability to make their own choice based on their own judgement of value. No wonder, then, that in the latest Times Higher Education reputation rankings Australian institutions have been slipping behind, with one of our top universities, Monash, falling out of the top 100 global rankings altogether. If we want to celebrate excellence, if we want to be amongst the world's best we need investment in Our higher education institutions. Deregulation of fees will allow this. In addition, more Commonwealth scholarships will be created as a result of these changes, providing additional support for students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and regional areas. Institutions with enrolments of 500 or more Commonwealth supported places will need to allocate $1 out of every $5 additional revenue they raise from student contributions to this new scholarship scheme. Deregulation of our university sector will also allow us to preserve outreach in higher education exports. Currently, education is Australia's fourth-largest export earner, with higher education comprising two-thirds of education exports. The middle class in our own region will grow from 500 million today to over three billion by 2030. This is both an opportunity and a challenge. Universities in Asia have burst onto the scene and have been moving up the world rankings whilst Australia has been slipping behind. If we can attract students from overseas to our universities it will be to our advantage both in subsidising the education experience for Australian students but also in bringing the best and brightest in the world to us. That is why the quality of the educational experience should always be paramount. Finally, for those who argue that deregulating fees is not the solution to further investment in higher education let me give you a short history lesson. In his final budget, former Treasurer Peter Costello established the higher education endowment scheme. This $6 billion fund was the result of hard years of paying back Labor's $96 billion of debt. It was also the result of very serious economic reform, including tax reform and microeconomic reform. The capital of the fund was designed to be preserved and ultimately grown over time. The interest from the fund was to provide certainty of funding for higher education institutions, allowing them to invest and compete on the world stage. Sadly, Treasurer Swan dismantled this fund and blew half of the proceeds. This was done in concert with the government partners of the time, the Greens. Clearly, Labor and the Greens cannot be trusted with the future educational opportunities of young Australians. Their default response is always, as we have seen only recently, to wreck and not build. When people talk about reduced access and greater inequality in our higher education sector, they seem to have scant regard for the generations that follow them. For the system to be truly fair and truly universal it needs to be constantly improving, not slipping behind. It also needs to be strong and robust enough to provide future generations with the educational opportunities and with even greater choices than previous generations have enjoyed. This means making it sustainable and accessible for the future—an education revolution, if you will. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 96430 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Feder ation Chamber adjourned at 21:02   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 4309 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Tonkin Highway (Question No. 61) 4309 61 Ms MacTiernan L6P asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 24 February 2014: Is his department currently funding or planning to fund the following grade separations on the Tonkin Highway: (a) Benara Road; (b) Morley Road; and (c) Collier Road; if so (i) when will these begin, and (ii) what sum is being allocated to each. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On 6 February 2014, I announced the Australian Government's commitment of $140.6 million to construct grade separations at Tonkin Highway's intersections with Benara Road, Morley Road and Collier Road. The project, known as NorthLink WA – Tonkin Grade Separations, is part of the Australian Government's Infrastructure Investment Programme of works for Western Australia, which is currently being settled. Broadband (Question No. 80) 4309 80 Ms Parke HWR asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 17 March 2014: In respect of the Western Australia suburbs of (a) Atwell, (b) Banjup, (c) Beaconsfield, (d) Beeliar, (e) Bibra Lake, (f) Bicton, (g) Coogee, (h) Coolbellup, (i) East Fremantle, (j) Hamilton Hill, (k) Hilton, (l) Jandakot, (m) North Fremantle, (n) Palmyra, (o) Samson, (p) South Fremantle, (q) South Lake, (r) Spearwood, (s) Success, (t) Wattleup, (u) White Gum Valley, (v) Willagee, (w) Yangebup, and (x) the City of Fremantle,    (i) what is the schedule for delivering minimum broadband download speeds of 25mbps to each suburb, and    (ii) how many households in each suburb currently have access to download speeds of 25mbps, and when will each remaining household have access to minimum broadband download speeds of 25mbps. Mr Turnbull 885 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:    (i) Labor failed Western Australians in rolling out the NBN. Prior to the time of the last election, as at 2 September 2013 NBN Co had connected just 91 active brownfields users in Western Australia. In the following 8 months the Coalition Government has increased active NBN brownfields users in WA by 28 times what Labor achieved in 6 years. The Strategic Review found that the fastest and most affordable way to deliver the NBN is to apply a mix of technologies based on their best fit with the infrastructure already in place. NBN Co is now making preparations to implement the Government's directions. NBN Co's review into the wireless and satellite programs has been completed and is available on its website. The outcomes of these reviews will feed into the process of determining which areas of Australia will be serviced by which technology. Meanwhile, the Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) build is continuing and the areas where build has commenced or where services are available are listed on the NBN Co website. Once these processes have been completed and NBN Co has stabilised the FTTP rollout, the company will be in a position to provide further details. NBN Co is working on a new rollout schedule which will indicate when different parts of Australia will be connected to the NBN and which technology will be used in those locations. We expect this information to be released in the second half of this year. Importantly, areas with no or limited access to broadband will be prioritised and will receive upgrades on average 2 years sooner than they would have under Labor.    (ii) Information about broadband speeds in particular areas is available from the Department of Communications' "My Broadband" website: www.mybroadband.communications.gov.au/ Broadband (Question No. 81) 4310 81 Ms Parke HWR asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 17 March 2014: In respect of the Western Australia suburbs of (a) Atwell, (b) Banjup, (c) Beaconsfield, (d) Beeliar, (e) Bibra Lake, (f) Bicton, (g) Coogee, (h) Coolbellup, (i) East Fremantle, (j) Hamilton Hill, (k) Hilton, (l) Jandakot, (m) North Fremantle, (n) Palmyra, (o) Samson, (p) South Fremantle, (q) South Lake, (r) Spearwood, (s) Success, (t) Wattleup, (u) White Gum Valley, (v) Willagee, (w) Yangebup, and (x) the City of Fremantle,    (i) what is the schedule for serving each suburb with fibre-to-the-premises technology for the delivery of high-speed broadband, and    (ii) if already being rolled out, how many households in each suburb have received fibre-to-the-premises technology as of 17 March 2014, and when will each remaining household receive it. Mr Turnbull 885 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See answer to House of Representatives Question in Writing HQIW80 Broadband (Question No. 82) 4310 82 Dr Leigh BU8 asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 17 March 2014: When will the following suburbs in the Australian Capital Territory have access to minimum broadband download speeds of 25mbps: (a) Ainslie, (b) Aranda, (c) Belconnen, (d) Bonner, (e) Braddon, (f) Bruce, (g) Campbell, (h) Casey, (i) Charnwood, (j) Cook, (k) Crace, (l) Dickson, (m) Downer, (n) Dunlop, (o) Evatt, (p) Florey, (q) Flynn, (r) Forde, (s) Fraser, (t) Giralang, (u) Hackett, (v) Hawker, (w) Higgins, (x) Holt, (y) Kaleen, (z) Latham, (ai) Lyneham, (aii) Macquarie, (aiii) McKellar, (aiv) Melba, (av) Nicholls, (avi) O'Connor, (avii) Page, (aviii) Reid, (aix) Scullin, (ax) Spence, (axi) Turner, (axii) Watson, and (axiii) Weetangera. Mr Turnbull 885 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Labor failed Australians in rolling out the NBN. The Strategic Review found that the fastest and most affordable way to deliver the NBN is to apply a mix of technologies based on their best fit with the infrastructure already in place. NBN Co is now making preparations to implement the Government's directions. NBN Co's review into the wireless and satellite programs has been completed and is available on its website. The outcomes of this and other reviews will feed into the process of determining which areas of Australia will be serviced by which technology. Meanwhile, the Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) build is continuing and the areas where build has commenced or where services are available are listed on the NBN Co website. Once these processes have been completed and NBN Co has stabilised the FTTP rollout, the company will be in a position to provide further details. NBN Co is working on a new rollout schedule which will indicate when different parts of Australia will be connected to the NBN and which technology will be used in those locations. We expect this information to be released in the second half of this year. Importantly, areas with no or limited access to broadband will be prioritised and will receive upgrades on average 2 years sooner than they would have under Labor. Broadband (Question No. 83) 4311 83 Dr Leigh BU8 asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 17 March 2014: When will the following suburbs in the Australian Capital Territory be served by fibre-to-the-premises technology for the delivery of high-speed broadband: (a) Ainslie, (b) Aranda, (c) Belconnen, (d) Bonner, (e) Braddon, (f) Bruce, (g) Campbell, (h) Casey, (i) Charnwood, (j) Cook, (k) Crace, (l) Dickson, (m) Downer, (n) Dunlop, (o) Evatt, (p) Florey, (q) Flynn, (r) Forde, (s) Fraser, (t) Giralang, (u) Hackett, (v) Hawker, (w) Higgins, (x) Holt, (y) Kaleen, (z) Latham, (ai) Lyneham, (aii) Macquarie, (aiii) McKellar, (aiv) Melba, (av) Nicholls, (avi) O'Connor, (avii) Page, (aviii) Reid, (aix) Scullin, (ax) Spence, (axi) Turner, (axii) Watson, and (axiii) Weetangera. Mr Turnbull 885 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See answer to House of Representatives Question in Writing HQIW82. Future Fund (Question No. 84) 4311 84 Mr Bandt M3C asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 18 March 2014: In respect of the Future Fund, (a) is it desirable for the Fund to act transparently and in the public interest, (b) is it in the public interest to have publicly accessible information on the nature of the Fund's investments, for example, through the Fund's website, (c) are the Fund's investments classified as commercial-in-confidence, if so, why, (d) what is the ethical framework guiding the Fund's managers, and (e) given the increasing level of investor concern about a carbon bubble and investments in fossil-fuels becoming 'stranded assets', what is the nature of the Fund's fossil-fuel investments, including the companies which are invested in and the individual sums invested in them. Mr Hockey DK6 The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Future Fund operates within the governance, performance and accountability framework for Commonwealth entities. The management of the Future Fund complies with the reporting obligations of Commonwealth entities, including reporting to Parliament via the tabling of an annual report and the appearance of senior executives of the Future Fund Management Agency at Senate Estimates hearings. The Future Fund was established with the clear objective to strengthen the Commonwealth's long-term financial position by making provision for the discharge of unfunded Commonwealth superannuation liabilities. The Future Fund Board of Guardians is responsible for deciding how to invest the Future Fund at arm's length from the Government. Under the Future Fund Act 2006, the Board is required to do this by seeking 'to maximise the return earned on the Fund over the long term, consistent with international best practice for institutional investment'. This is in the best interest for the taxpayer. (b) The Future Fund makes information regarding its operations and investment activity available to the public via its website. Examples of the information available on the Future Fund's website include the Future Fund Board of Guardians Statement of Investment Policies, quarterly portfolio updates and the Fund's top 100 listed equity holdings. (c) The appropriateness of public disclosure of the Future Fund's portfolio investments is a matter for the Board to decide, noting the independence of the Board, and having regard for maintaining the Fund's ability to pursue competitive investment opportunities and maximise returns on investments. (d) The Future Fund Board has developed and published a Statement of Investment Policies, which includes its policy on environmental, social and governance (ESG) risk management. The Board's ESG Risk Management Policy provides a framework for managing the complex risks and opportunities related to ESG issues both directly and through external investment managers. It addresses the Fund's approach to integrating ESG considerations into investment decision-making, the exercise of ownership rights and engagement with investee companies, the Fund's approach to collaboration with other investors to enhance the financial system and its approach to considering exclusions from the portfolio. (e) In accordance with its investment mandate and investment strategy, the Future Fund, through its external investment managers, has exposure to many thousands of entities across a breadth of economic activities. In regard to 'fossil-fuel investments', entities in which the Fund invests will frequently have diversified operations, which may include fossil-fuel related activities, renewable energy-related activities as well as other unrelated activities. As such it is not a simple matter to identify 'fossil-fuel investments'. However, using S&P's Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) it is possible to identify the size of the Future Fund's listed equity investments in the categories of diversified metals and mining, coal and consumable fuels, integrated oil and gas and oil and gas exploration and production. The Fund's listed equity investments in these categories at 18 March 2014 was $3.634 billion. As noted above many entities in these categories have diversified operations and, in addition, entities classified elsewhere in the GICS framework may also have activities associated with fossil-fuels. Bice Oval (Question No. 86) 4312 86 Ms Rishworth HWA asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 18 March 2014: In respect of the much needed upgrade of Bice Oval, Christies Beach in South Australia, (a) will the $600,000 committed by the previous Government for improvements to change rooms and the installation of lighting be delivered so that the project can proceed as planned, and (b) why has there been no response to my urgent correspondence about this matter on 2 October 2013 and 28 November 2013. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) No. The Australian Government will continue projects under the Liveable Communities Programme (formerly Liveable Cities Program) where contracts have been settled. However, it will not be progressing projects that were commitments of the former government that were not contracted prior to the caretaker period, including the upgrade to the Bice Oval. (b) My Department advises me there is no record of your correspondence dated 2 October 2013 in the Department. A reply to your correspondence dated 28 November 2013 was sent to you on 14 April 2014. As noted in my letter of 14 April 2014, your correspondence was received by my office on 28 January 2014, having been referred from the Minister for Sport, the Hon Peter Dutton MP, for consideration and reply. In my response I apologised for the delay and I trust that my response addresses your concerns. Minister for Employment (Question No. 146) 4313 146 Mr Danby WF6 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 13 May 2014: Since 7 September 2013, on (a) how many occasions, and (b) what date(s), has the Minister met with Australian Water Holdings Pty Ltd chief executive Mr Nick Di Girolamo, and can the Minister provide the nature of each meeting. Mr Pyne 9V5 The Minister for Employment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Consistent with previous questions on notice and the practice of Ministers of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government, I do not disclose with whom I have or have not met.