2015-03-05 44 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 5 March 2015

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

BILLS 1 BILLS Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015 1

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:01 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015 on behalf of the Abbott government. The amendments to be made by this bill support changes introduced last year by the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014. The Foreign fighters act, among other things, addressed the emerging threat of Australians seeking to travel overseas to fight with terrorist organisations. Importantly in the context of this bill, it also enhanced the capability of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to identify persons seeking to enter and depart Australia, and noncitizens who remain in Australia. The amendments to be made by this bill support the Prime Minister's national security statement on 23 February 2015 that further legislation to combat terrorism and keep Australians safe would be brought forward. Recent terrorism related events in Australia and globally serve to remind us that the threat of a domestic terrorist attack remains real. This bill further strengthens Australia's border protection measures by enhancing the capability of the department to identify persons seeking either to enter or depart Australia, and noncitizens who remain in Australia. Measures in the bill focus on biometrics, termed 'personal identifiers' in the Migration Act, which are a unique identifier that is based on individual physical characteristics, such as facial image, fingerprints, and iris, which can be digitised into a biometric template for automated storage and checking. The department commenced collecting biometrics, facial images and fingerprints from particular cohorts of noncitizens in 2006, and has progressively expanded its biometric collection program using a risk based approach. For example, in 2010, the department commenced collecting biometrics from noncitizens applying for protection in Australia, and from overseas applicants for visas in particular higher risk countries. Biometrics are an important integrity measure that contribute significantly to protecting Australia's border, and preventing the entry of persons who may threaten the Australian community. Once anchored to a person's biographic information, such as name, nationality and date of birth, a biometric adds significantly to the portfolio's capability to verify that a person is who they claim to be, and links an individual to security, law enforcement, and immigration information. Biometrics are more accurate than document based checks of biographic detail, such as name, date of birth and nationality because they are relatively stable over time and are significantly more difficult to forge. As the utility of collecting biometrics rests on a foundation of accurate identification, fingerprints provide higher integrity identity assurance than identity documentation or facial images. The department has made more than 9,000 fingerprint matches with Australian law enforcement agencies and the immigration agencies of other countries. These matches have revealed undisclosed security and criminal histories, as well as discrepancies between the biographic data provided to the department and that provided to another agency. As Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, I regularly review immigration cases where biometrics have been utilised by the department to expose identity and/or immigration fraud. This includes individuals who have returned to Australia—or tried to return—under assumed identities, years after being removed from this country. Some others have attempted to gain protection here under assumed identities when they already have protection in safe third countries. Current biometric measures have exposed fraudulent and illegal activity in these instances, but the sophistication of the technology used to enter Australia illegally strains the resources of Australia's border protection agencies every day. It is the government's duty to ensure our laws are equal to the task which is faced by our border agencies. That is, while the current biometric program has effectively supported Australia's border protection efforts since it was introduced more than 10 years ago, it now needs to be updated to more effectively meet current threats and to keep pace with advances in biometric technologies. The bill provides for a simplified scheme to collect biometrics, particularly fingerprints, but does not introduce a universal biometrics collection policy. The department will continue to facilitate the smooth travel to Australia of the overwhelming majority of people who are legitimate travellers and law-abiding people, without collecting additional biometrics. While acknowledging the impact on travellers in circumstances where a certain amount of identity verification is required, the increased collection powers are proportionate to the legitimate purpose of protecting the Australian community and the integrity of the migration program. The bill will address gaps in the existing biometric legislative framework and replace seven existing provisions in the Migration Act, which separately authorise the collection of biometrics in particular circumstances, with a single broad discretionary power to collect biometrics for the purposes of the Migration Act or the Migration Regulations. Streamlining the existing multiple provisions will remove inconsistency and duplication, and enhance the department's efforts to achieve important government policy objectives. These include removing current restrictions on the circumstances where biometrics can be collected, and providing flexibility in the collection of biometrics from citizens and noncitizens who are arriving and departing Australia. The bill provides a broader power to collect biometrics from noncitizens who have been identified as of concern after their arrival, and from behaviour while living in the Australian community. Significant numbers of noncitizens have not had identity, security and criminal history checks conducted under the Department's biometric programme, either because of the timing of their entry into Australia, or because of their method of arrival. Only a small number of noncitizens are required to provide their biometrics for checking each year. In 2013-14, less than two per cent of noncitizens granted a visa to come to Australia provided biometrics to the department. As a result, the higher integrity identity, security, law enforcement and immigration history checks that are possible using biometrics, have only been conducted on a small number who have travelled to Australia since 2007. Noncitizens who may be required to provide biometrics include those under investigation by immigration officers for identity fraud or breaches of visa conditions. Biometrics may also be required from an individual who is suspected of failing to disclose adverse information when they applied for their visa. Biometrics collected will be used to conduct additional checks with domestic and international agencies to link individuals to security, law enforcement, and immigration information known to other agencies, but which the individual has not disclosed to the department. The ability to verify information against data held by Five Country Conference partners as well as domestic agencies provides greater integrity to the immigration system, protection against the spread of terrorism and human trafficking and will assist in resolving the current asylum seeker caseload. While the bill will continue to allow the collection and use of biometrics at the border, recent examples of Australians leaving to participate in foreign conflicts have highlighted the need for additional actions to detect such persons at the border. The example of convicted terrorist Khaled Sharrouf who in December 2013 used his brother's passport to leave Australia to participate in terrorist related activities illustrates the need for fingerprint-based checks. The collection measures in this bill provide the tools to stop people like Sharrouf at the border due to the higher level of accuracy in identifying individuals provided by fingerprint verification. The bill provides for a framework to enable manual fingerprint-based checks to be carried out using mobile, hand-held devices to detect persons of concern. The checks will be conducted at airports and seaports and will take 20 to 40 seconds to complete. A traveller's identity will be checked against immigration and security agency data holdings using up to four finger images. The images will not be retained following completion of the check. This enhanced capability to conduct meaningful cross checks with relevant agencies' data holdings will respond to potential alerts or threats before someone boards an aircraft or ship, or is cleared to move into the Australian community. These mobile devices will also be deployed for use in other circumstances to assure the identity of noncitizens during key transactions with the department. The bill will remove existing restrictions in the Migration Act on collecting biometrics from minors and incapable persons, to address current inconsistencies in the Migration Act where certain restrictions on collecting biometrics do not apply at Australia's borders, but do apply in other circumstances, such as at the time of applying for a visa. The removal of existing restrictions on collecting biometrics from minors is primarily a child protection measure aimed at preventing child trafficking and/or smuggling. Collecting personal identifiers, particularly fingerprints, from children will permit a higher level of integrity in identifying minors overseas where known cases of child smuggling and trafficking reveal higher risk. This includes conducting fingerprint-based checks against lists of missing or abducted children with countries of suspected origin as well as against Interpol missing persons records. Fingerprints provide a unique capability to accurately identify individuals that is not possible using a facial image, particularly if the person is a minor. Unlike a facial image, which is subject to considerable change as a person ages into adulthood, fingerprints are relatively stable throughout a person's life. Further, Australia, like the United States, the United Kingdom and many other countries face the return of potentially radicalised minors after participating in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere. While it is an uncomfortable proposition that a minor may be capable of involvement in terrorist activities or extreme violence, the conflict in the Middle East has provided evidence of the involvement of children. Through the Five Country Conference data sharing arrangements, Australia would be able to access fingerprint-based records of minors who may already be known to the security agencies of other countries. Where a minor is suspected of involvement in a terrorist activity or indeed serious criminal activity, fingerprints would enable searches of Five Country Conference partner databases and Australian law enforcement data holdings. In conclusion, the Australian government is committed to fulfilling its most important responsibility—to protect Australia, its people and its interests. This bill is an important part of preventing persons of risk from entering Australia and remaining in Australia undetected. The amendments will expand the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's capabilities to identify individuals through biometric checks, which are more accurate than current document-based checks. The bill creates a new legislative framework for collecting biometrics that will contribute to improved decision making, whether the decision is to grant a noncitizen a visa to come to Australia, permit entry or departure at the border, or to allow a non-citizen to remain in Australia. The government is serious—very serious—about border protection. The measures in this bill underscore that commitment. I urge all members to support this bill and ensure those necessary reforms. I commend this bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. BILLS 3 BILLS Succession to the Crown Bill 2015 3

Succession to the Crown Bill 2015

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:13 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Succession to the Crown Bill 2015 will provide the Parliament of Australia's assent to three important reforms to modernise the law relating to royal succession. These changes are consistent with changes being made to the law in the United Kingdom. They will align the royal succession laws with modern values and ensure that the same person is the Sovereign of Australia and of the United Kingdom. The first reform will end the system of male preference primogeniture so that in future the order of succession will be determined simply by the order of birth. Female heirs will no longer be displaced by their younger brothers. The reform will apply to any person born after 28 October 2011. The second reform is to remove the bar on succession for an heir and successor of the Sovereign who marries a Catholic. The existing restriction applies to Catholics alone and not to any other faith. The reform will apply to all existing marriages at the time the law comes into force as well as to future marriages. The third reform is to limit the requirement that the Sovereign consent to the marriage of a descendant of his late Majesty King George the Second to the first six persons in line to the Crown. Failure to obtain permission to marry will no longer prevent a person from marrying, but simply mean that the person and the person's descendants are removed from the line of succession. The reform will also validate some marriages voided by the Royal Marriages Act 1772 of Great Britain. The existing rule applies to hundreds of descendants. Many of them would not have been aware that they needed the Sovereign's permission to marry. Their marriages may be legally void as a result. This bill will correct that situation by validating those marriages, provided they meet certain criteria. The reforms were enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom on 22 April 2013, and will come into force on the commencement of the UK legislation, as soon as all 16 realms, including Australia, implement the reforms in their jurisdictions. The Commonwealth, states and territories, in the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, agreed to the reforms in July 2012, and agreed in April 2013 to implement them using a legislative consent-and-request approach relying on section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution. Under this approach each of the states pass legislation requesting that the Commonwealth enact legislation for the whole of Australia. All states' legislation needs to commence before the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia can enact the Commonwealth legislation. I note here that all states' legislation has now been commenced. COAG further agreed that any states that wished to could also enact state legislation dealing with the rules of royal succession alongside the request legislation. This modernisation of the laws of succession ensures the continued relevance of the monarchy to Australia and her people and reflects the commitment that all Australians have to equality and to nondiscrimination. We are proud today to be changing the laws of royal succession to reflect modern Australian values. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 4 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 4 09:17 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the honourable Leader of the Opposition to speak for a period equal to the Prime Minister when speaking in reply to the Prime Minister's motion on the anniversary of the loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. Leave granted. 09:18 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period equal to the Prime Minister when speaking in reply to the Prime Minister's motion relating to the 1st anniversary of the loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEES Publications Committee 4 Report 4 09:18 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table. I ask leave of the House to move that the report be agreed to. Leave granted. 09:18 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I move: That the report be agreed to. Question agreed to. Public Works Committee 4 Membership 4 09:19 The SPEAKER SE4 I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator the Hon. Bill Heffernan has been discharged from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and that Senator Canavan has been appointed a member of that committee. BILLS 5 BILLS Enhancing Online Safety for Children (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 5

Enhancing Online Safety for Children (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014

Returned from Senate 5 Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014 5

Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014

Consideration of Senate Message 5 09:20 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield The government supports the amendments made to the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014 in the other place. These amendments implement recommendation 1 in the report of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. Clause 50 of the bill sets out the eligibility criteria for the statutory role of the Children's e-Safety Commissioner. It states that the minister must be satisfied that a person is not eligible to be appointed as the commissioner unless they have substantial experience or knowledge and significant standing in at least one of a range of fields, including the fields of operation of social media services, and public engagement on issues relating to online safety. The amendments expand the range of fields to include experience or knowledge in child welfare or child wellbeing. I commend the amendments to the House and move: That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2015 5

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2015

Second Reading 5 09:22 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I would like to thank members who have contributed to this debate. The Australian government's focus on skills is working to restore trades and vocational education and training to their rightful place at the centre of our national economy. Ensuring Australian workers are highly skilled and job-ready is critical to national economic growth and productivity and a key plank of the government's industry innovation and competitiveness agenda. The Australian government has embarked on significant VET reform, which has included widespread consultation. Our reforms are focused on ensuring vocational education and training is led by industry and employer needs. They are also focused on ensuring the national VET system delivers quality training that has the confidence of students, employers and the wider community. The National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2015 strengthens the regulation of registered training providers and third-party brokers in order to address quality concerns. The bill amends the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 and introduces measures to protect the integrity of the national training system to provide better balance in the regulation of the training system and to improve the efficiency and operation of the act and consequently the national regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, known as ASQA. In particular, extending the maximum period of registration for registered training providers from five to seven years will enable the ASQA to focus its compliance efforts on those doing the wrong thing rather than on registration or renewal audits, which providers expect and prepare for. The introduction of a quality standard-making power sends a clear signal to all in the training sector that, when required, the Commonwealth government will quickly take action against those who undermine the quality of training provided to students or abuse taxpayer funding. When exercising the standard-making power, the government will consult with key stakeholders, including employers and states and territories. This bill compliments the tough new RTO national standards the government has already introduced, which come into effect in less than a month. For example, the marketing provisions of this bill increase transparency requirements on training providers and third parties when advertising training courses to students. These provisions come on top of the changes in the standards which require RTOs to have written agreements with brokers and make RTOs responsible for broker behaviour on their behalf. To help protect students and ensure they are fully informed about their training and the associated debt, ASQA is already working with consumer law agencies. Measures introduced in this bill, including broader information-sharing provisions, will further this consumer protection. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER SE4 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Cunningham has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time.

The House divided. [09:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)

 52 AYES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Feeney, D 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 Marles, RD Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 82 NOES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW 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 Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McGowan, C McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA (teller) O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Vasta, RX Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Consideration in Detail 7 09:37 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute: 6 Subsection 17(5)    Omit "more than 5 years", substitute:       more than:    (a) 5 years; or    (b) if the application is to renew the registration of an NVR registered training organisation that the Regulator has rated as low risk (using the Risk Assessment Framework)—7 years. (2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 16 (line 11), omit "registration, including renewal of registration", substitute "renewal of registration". The opportunity to discuss these matters in the previous debate on the second reading of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2015 gave me the opportunity to outline the reason that Labor has put this amendment forward in the consideration in detail section—and I just want to reiterate it in the few minutes in this part of the debate. I indicated that Labor recognises that the vast bulk of this bill is intended to provide really sensible amendments to the powers of the regulator and the government in order to increase or improve definitional terms—for example, as many members indicated, the fact that the original bill's RTO strict definition was hampering and tying the hands of the regulator with respect to some of those purported RTO activities that were going on in the market—and to provide some significant quality assurance improvements, particularly the ability for the minister to act more speedily to address some of the things that had emerged in the market. We absolutely endorse many of those. The message from those amendments is particularly important and useful for the general public at the moment—and that is why I commend the government for them. It is clear to see day by day from media reports the very unscrupulous behaviour that is going on in the VET market. Only this morning, I opened my own paper the Illawarra Mercury to see another story about more students, with very significant debts, who felt that they had got a very poor outcome and were potentially misled or given misinformation about their enrolments. This is out there in our communities. I listened to as many of the second reading speakers as I could, not only on our side of the House but on the other side of the House, telling very moving and concerning stories about their constituents who had been to them with great concerns about their children or vulnerable people they were caring for who had been caught up in this scandalous scam behaviour in the community. The bill, in its vast bulk, is exactly on message. It is saying exactly what should be said. We should be strengthening the arm of the regulator; we should be strengthening the arm of the minister to respond—and that is why we endorse it. This is why I am a bit bemused and why I really want to take this opportunity to at least put my amendments on the record to give those on the opposite side—and I do not know that I have convinced them—the chance to also support them on the record in the public debate. The particular section that I want to amend now puts in place a change to the registration period. Previously, when registering under ASQA, an RTO was given a registration for five years. The proposal is to move that out to seven. In normal circumstances, in a well-regulated market operating as it should, and not as we are seeing at the moment, these things might be quite logical. The regulator outlined at Senate estimates how they want to shift from a focus of doing known audit processes, where people are able to plan well in advance of the audit—therefore limiting its effectiveness—to a much more intelligence-based, risk-based intervention system. I think that is a good thing to do. Their argument is that the move from five to seven years actually will free their resources up so that they will be doing fewer renewals of registration and can focus on these high-risk ones—and I do understand that as well. The other argument, which I also understand, is that TEQSA, which regulates the university sector, has seven-year time frames. There are quite a few people operating across sectors, so for them it is a logical thing to have a seven-year period. My problem is that I think now is exactly the wrong time to have included this clause in the bill. I am proposing in my amendment that it becomes an earned capacity—that is, once an RTO has been registered and has earned the reputation of being a low-risk, reliable provider, then, on renewal, they can then get a seven-year period. I think it is a sensible strengthening of the message that the government is attempting to put in place through this bill. For that reason, I commend the bill and I hope those opposite find the ability to support my amendments. 09:42 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt The government does not support the amendment proposed by Labor. The amendment is unnecessary and duplicates powers the regulator already has. The time periods in the legislation are upper limits—that is, up to seven years. ASQA already has the power to make decisions both at the time of initial registration and renewal to register a provider for less than the maximum of seven years. Subsection 157(4) of the act currently requires ASQA to apply the risk assessment framework when performing its functions. It is unnecessary and duplicative to reference the risk assessment framework in relation to the renewal of registration. The amendment will also see ASQA diverting resources away from the most effective regulatory actions. ASQA has also advised the government that to incorporate the notion of a low-risk rating into the legislation as the basis for the period of registration is extremely problematic. It will in fact divert resources from more effective compliance monitoring and action against poor providers. A provider risk rating is only one element of ASQA's overall risk approach to regulation. ASQA has previously advised the government that re-registration audits are the least effective method of identifying poor performing providers, leading to less sanction activity than other types of audit. ASQA's transition to a full, proportionate risk-based approach places less emphasis on the registration life cycle and more emphasis on the collection and analysing of data to determine where problems exist in the sector. This more proactive form of regulation includes annual environmental scanning and six-month monitoring, to properly identify where problems exist; collecting and using data analytic tools and better use of intelligence, including complaints, to direct regulatory interventions; and using profiles rather than simple risk ratings to better identify potential problems in the market. ASQA can then direct its resources to addressing these problems and higher-risk providers and practice. Moving to a seven-year registration cycle is consistent with this risk approach. The amendment would tie up ASQA's resources in dealing with reviews of and appeals against its risk rating of providers rather than addressing poor practice. Including a reference to risk ratings in the renewal process will leave the regulator vulnerable to lengthy disputes around rationales for discriminating between various providers on the basis of untested risk ratings. Administrative appeals processes can be lengthy and resource intensive for the regulator, with matters taking at least eight to 12 months to resolve. All in all, an amendment to draw distinctions between the initial registration period and the re-registration period would complicate the regulatory architecture, lead to the potential for challenge and litigation attaching to the regulator's decision as to the allocation of a risk rating, misinterpret the relative role that a risk rating plays in an overall and comprehensive risk approach to regulation and divert resources of the regulator towards red tape and administration and away from identifying and acting upon high-risk providers and poor practices. So the government does not support that amendment. In closing, I do not blame the current shadow minister for amendments such as these or, in fact, the situation we find ourselves in in the vocational education and training regulatory space, because she has been trying to be proactive and as helpful as possible to the government over these matters which are important. But the seeds of the issues we are dealing with now were created when the system was first established by the previous government when Senator Carr was the minister. Yet again, Senator Carr has proven why he should not be the shadow minister for education. 09:46 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I appreciate the minister's comments. It is an important area to look at. I would just like to put on the record that the VET FEE-HELP scheme was actually established in 2007 under the Howard government, although it did commence in 2009. So I think the history is important but less important than those people in our communities who are being exploited at this point in time. I have to put on the record my appreciation to the assistant minister as well and encourage him to perhaps have some conversations with me before the bill is finalised to find a way to address some of these issues. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 220370 The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Bill agreed to.

The House divided. [09:51]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mrs Griggs)

 50 AYES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Feeney, D 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 Marles, RD Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Thomson, KJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 79 NOES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA (teller) O'Dowd, KD Palmer, CF Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Vasta, RX Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 10 09:59 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 10 BUSINESS Rearrangement 10 10:00 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That government business notice No. 3, Anniversary of the loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 11 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2014-2015, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015 11

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2014-2015

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015

Second Reading 11 10:01 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 220370 The question is that the amendment be agreed to. 10:01 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt As I was saying when debate was interrupted on Tuesday, ABS data shows that households in the lowest income quintile rely on the government for about 55.1 per cent of their income. At the other end of the scale, households in the highest income quintile receive less than one per cent of their income from government. Looking at the income tax system, in 2011-12, one-sixth of all individuals filing income tax returns paid nearly two-thirds of all income tax. Narrowing that down further, around two per cent of individuals paid about 26 per cent of all income tax. Conversely, 45 per cent of those filing an income tax return paid less than four per cent of total income tax. Is it fair that such a burden be placed on so few? Is it fair that people who have made sacrifices to be in a position to earn more, such as paying to attend university, working long hours away from family or taking financial risks, are penalised for doing so? Labor have made a lot of noise about the 2014 budget being unfair; but take a close look at the six budgets delivered by Labor from 2008-09 through to 2013-14. From an intergenerational perspective—and we will hear more about that later today from the Treasurer—those were the most unfair budgets in our country's history. Over that period, as I stated on Tuesday, our position went from having $44.8 billion in the bank to owing $202 billion. What is even worse is that they put in place a whole range of new initiatives that were either unfunded or not fully funded beyond the forward estimates, knowing full well that Australia would be liable for further bills once they left office. I just about choked on my morning coffee when the Leader of the Opposition's latest missive to his Labor supporters landed on my desk. He talks about how his team 'will be focused on the people who are counting on us, like the students facing the prospect of $100,000 degrees, patients being slugged with the Liberals' unfair GP tax, or families under pressure thanks to Tony Abbott's $1 billion of cuts to child care'. This clearly illustrates Labor's deception around the concept of fairness. The higher education debate has been focused on those students who are fortunate enough to attend university and who are being asked if they can pay a little bit more. What about the fact that our reforms will enable even more young people from regional areas to attend university? Why is it so unreasonable to ask that a student pay a little more for their degree and the taxpayer a little less, given that university graduates typically earn around $1 million more over their working lives than nongraduates? The GP co-payment has been dropped, but it does not change the fact that we need to strengthen Medicare for the long term. At its current rate of growth, it is totally unsustainable. On childcare, again Labor allowed the system to completely blow its budget. Childcare fees skyrocketed 50 per cent under Labor, which abandoned its promise to build 260 new centres. We are focused on a more flexible and responsive childcare system which will lift workforce participation. Labor conveniently forgets that, of the 10.1 million Australian income tax payers, eight million go to work to pay tax so we can fund our $150 billion welfare system. The new McClure review points to the need for a simpler welfare system that focuses on supporting getting people into work and helping those who need our assistance most, while respecting the taxpayers who have to pay for it. At a family level, most parents hope to build some wealth during their lifetime to help their children and grandchildren have an easier start in life. At the government level, Labor took the opposite approach. The result is that this government has been left holding the can, making the decisions to cut spending and rationalise services that no government really wants to make. I do not want to dwell entirely on the negative today. Despite the challenges that I have outlined, we have had some major achievements in the past 17 months. The carbon tax is gone, so every household on average is $550 better off. New projects worth over $1 trillion have received environmental approval. The mining tax is gone, making Australia certainly a better place to invest. Free trade agreements covering more than 50 per cent of our exports—with China, Japan and South Korea—have been finalised. The NBN is actually rolling out now, is far more reliable and has improved in relation to affordability. The boats, which peaked under Labor, have now stopped. Jobs growth in 2014 was triple the rate in 2013. The registration of new companies is the highest on record. Economic growth is now 2.7 per cent, up from 1.9 per cent a year ago. In Leichhardt, we have welcomed a range of investment from government, including $19 million to refurbish the Star of the Sea Elders Village on Thursday Island; 42 beds for a Mossman nursing home, after—goodness me—20 years of campaigning, and now we are looking for capital investment to finalise that project; $1.4 million to establish the Mossman Botanic Garden; and funding for a wide range of initiatives focused on improving the health of the Great Barrier Reef, including $5 million for turtle and dugong protection and $40 million for the Reef Trust. There is $42 million towards the establishment of the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine and, through that, we will have a faculty for tropical sports medicine. From there, we want to build an institute that will be the fourth of its kind, providing tropical conditioning for athletes and sportspeople, and we want it to be centred in Cairns. There is $1.8 million for a pilot project to address health, water and sanitation issues in Papua New Guinea to deal with the tuberculosis crisis up there; $4.8 million towards the refurbishment of the Tobruk Memorial Pool in Cairns; $350,000 for the establishment of the mental health Clubhouse in Cairns, which is going absolutely brilliantly at the moment; $150 million towards Cape York infrastructure, including sealing sections of the Peninsula Developmental Road. I expect we will see in my lifetime the sealing of the entire Peninsula Developmental Road, something I never imagined, even six or seven years ago. There is $12 million for sea walls in the Torres Strait, with construction just starting now; $400,000 for new CCTV in the Cairns CBD; $9.7m to James Cook University for the Daintree Rainforest Observatory; and more than $100,000 for projects around Leichhardt to commemorate the anniversary of Anzac, which is of course a great initiative from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and this government. Stage 1 of the Bruce Highway southern approach to Cairns will be completed with stages 2 and 3 fully funded for the next ten years. The crowning jewel is the white paper on Northern Australia, which was due out at the end of February. Unfortunately, with the change of government in Queensland and the natural disaster on the Capricorn Coast we need to wait a little while for the new Premier to sign off on it before we release it. In addition, Green Army projects are getting underway; a medicinal cannabis bill is in the Senate; communications black spots are a priority; insurance measures including the aggregator website are underway; and we have an initiative that has been put up recently and is being considered by the Assistant Treasurer and the Prime Minister's office, which will see a brand new product coming into the market, which I really expect will see a significant downward trend in the current prices for insurance in Northern Australia. This year, the government's priority is about creating more jobs, easing the pressure on families, building roads, strengthening national security and prompting more opportunity for all—with a new families policy and a new small business and jobs policy. In conclusion, there is no doubt that we need to prepare now for the Australia we want for the future. Prosperity is not predestined; the decisions we make today will shape our future. Therefore, reform is essential. But it is becoming increasingly clear that we will only achieve reform if we convince the Australian population that the reform is fair so they come along with us on this journey. Let us look to our neighbour, where John Key's re-elected New Zealand National government has demonstrated how to work back to surplus through tax reform, health reform and sensible workplace relations changes that were both efficient and fair. In the UK, David Cameron has been faced with a situation where out of every 100 pounds the government spends they have had to save one. Thanks to sensible spending measures and reforms, such as a major overhaul of their welfare system, they have seen GDP growing and have slashed unemployment. As the member for Wannon wrote recently in the Drum: Populism and false hope through denial of our problems will only lead to a future where the government will struggle to provide services and maintain our standard of living. As every household and business knows, living within your means over time is not austerity, it is common sense Australia's continuing prosperity depends on the success of the reforms we are pursuing now to support productivity growth and participation, boost job creation and expand the opportunities for Australian businesses and workers to thrive well into the future. 10:11 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio It is a great opportunity to be able to rise and speak in response to this legislation, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 and cognate bills, because it allows me to place on record the concerns that are felt within my community and my electorate about the impact of the unfair budget which the Abbott government has put in place and is still seeking to pass through the parliament, although every day another element of it seems to be jettisoned. The last 18 months have been a difficult time for the electorate of Corio and for the people of Geelong. We have seen the two key private sector pillars of our economy, Ford and Alcoa, announce that they will be ending their operations in Geelong. Indeed, in the case of Alcoa that has already happened, as aluminium stopped being smelted in Geelong in August of last year and the rolling products plant was finalised in December last year. Ford will complete its making of cars in Geelong at the end of next year, albeit the design component of Ford will remain in Geelong thereafter. That is obviously a very important commitment by Ford. For a place that was a major manufacturing city in this country, the fact that those activities have or will come to an end obviously has a significant impact upon our economy and our employment. I think everyone in Geelong right now is feeling that. The reason I raise that is that, against that background, the budget announced last year by the government could not have come at a worse time and could not have delivered more punitive or punishing measures. In essence it said that, for those who will need to rely on it, the social safety net is being critically reduced and that for those who want to make sure that their children have the future opportunities they want to give them those opportunities are contracting. We need only look at the measures that have been put in place in respect of universities to see its impact. We now face the genuine prospect of people being required to pay back $100,000 university degrees. The deregulation of the university sector as planned by the government presents Deakin University in the electorate of Corio with an appalling choice, which is essentially between maintaining their accessible and, in that sense, low-cost nature as a place of education for people in Geelong on the one hand—and, in the process, jettisoning their research capacity, which is so important in driving employment in Geelong—and doing the reverse: hanging onto their research capacity but seeing an increase in the fees associated with studying at the university as a result. That is the kind of decision which should never be placed in front of a university such as Deakin University, which is a really important driver of the future and economy of Geelong. In the context of all that has occurred in Geelong, to put that decision in front of Deakin right now just leaves people in Geelong with a sense that this is a government which is happy or content to leave Geelong behind. The degree of anger within our community about that idea is utterly palpable. In the budget, we have seen propositions which involve a wholesale breaking of promises, including increasing the petrol tax and somehow justifying that on the basis, as the Treasurer suggested, that poor people do not drive as much, which is utterly ridiculous and, in fact, completely wrong. Poor people, if we are going to use that term, need to have as easy access to transport as possible to connect them with employment opportunities. Reducing the ease of that transport actually makes their condition much worse. Yet that is what we have been faced with by the budget that has been put forward. Another measure is forcing young job seekers who are under 30 to spend six months without any income whatsoever before they can claim any income support. That is an appalling proposition to put to the people of Corio, Norlane, Newcomb and Whittington, for whom that kind of support is utterly essential in empowering them to pursue their economic opportunities and seek employment. Ultimately, what that does is place a burden on their families and put them in a position of needing to make really extreme decisions, the kinds of decisions that we would not want those people to make. I can go on and on. Other measures include removing the three months backdating of the disability pension for veterans; raising the retirement age to 70; cutting families from family tax benefit part B when their youngest child turns six; slashing the family tax benefit end-of-year supplements and ceasing indexation; pushing young people under 25 from Newstart onto the lower youth allowance, which amounts to a cut of at least $48 a week, or almost $2½ thousand a year; axing the education entry payment; axing the seniors supplement, which is worth more than $800 a year to around 300,000 of our senior Australians; axing the pensioner education supplement; cutting the deeming rate thresholds for seniors and veterans, which will leave them with lower pensions; cutting the age pension, the disability support pension, the veterans pension and the carer payment by $80 a week within 10 years through the changing of the indexation arrangements; cutting the parenting payment arrangement for single parents; extending the ordinary waiting period for working age payments; freezing the payment rates for family tax benefits—and I could go on. This represents a very significant assault on the social safety net of Australia but particularly of the Geelong community at a time when the Geelong community needs that safety net more than ever. We are seeing some interesting movements on the other side of the aisle when it comes to what is going on with their commitment to this budget and, indeed, who might ultimately lead the government in the future, but make no mistake: this is a government which, when you look across the entirety of the frontbench, supports the aspirations and the intent of the budget as it was handed down in May last year. One only needs to look at what the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, has said: No minister has ever said to me that the budget was unfair, that's right. That says everything. There is absolutely no doubt that, whoever ends up leading the show on the other side and no matter what they jettison, at the end of the day the entirety of that frontbench signed up to the measures which were in the budget, which I have just outlined. Indeed, the finance minister has said in recent weeks that he feels: The second Budget will build on the progress that we made in our first Budget. Note the word 'progress'. That is the way in which this government characterises what it has done in respect of the budget that was handed down. We are seeing changes to the budget, and there seems to be an attempt to throw as many things overboard as possible. We have seen that with the paid parental leave scheme and we have seen it this week with the GP co-payment—but, even after that was tossed overboard, the Minister for Health made clear: The policy intent was and remains a good one … This is a statement that was made after the decision to shelve the GP co-payment—'The policy intent was and remains a good one.' So it is important that every Australian understands that, whatever they do on the other side, what they want to do and what the government believes in is to pursue the budget as it was handed down in May last year. In articulating those points, I want to say something about the discussion which has occurred in respect of Australia Post and how that impacts the local community that I represent here. Australia Post is a treasured institution with a universal service obligation covering every single home and business right across the country. The elderly, the vulnerable and millions of people around Australia rely on our postal services, including small businesses and including charities. Currently, Australia Post has 4,400 post offices; 2½ thousand of those are in regional areas. Stamps are 70c. Australia Post is required to deliver mail in any regional city or town like Geelong for local delivery by the very next day. It is a crucial service, ensuring that Australian businesses and the economy in general run smoothly. For example, Australia Post estimates that it can deliver an average of 12.6 million items of mail every working day. The scale, efficiency and importance of this institution across our country are undeniable. The price of a stamp guarantees delivery regardless of any difficulties encountered on its journey to its destination. We on this side of the parliament understand the need for reform in the context of the changing nature of our communications environment. In saying that, any measures that are taken need to be done in a way which takes the community with us, need to be done in a way which takes the Australia Post workforce along with those reforms, and need to be in consultation with the relevant unions. It is not a radical proposition—you need to bring people along when there is change. In recent days, we have seen the communications minister announce that this service that we rely on will be the subject of a significant change. Mr Turnbull, the communications minister, has stood up and tried to sell to the Australian public the idea of paying more money for a letter to arrive two days slower than it does today. This will shift the cost, to a degree, of this efficient and universal service onto the public. At a time when family budgets in Geelong are facing threats from the government, as I have outlined, to their health care and education and when we are seeing jobs being lost and the cost of living rising and growth slowing, that is the moment that we see this Minister for Communications and the Prime Minister decide that the time is right to look at Australia Post and add additional burdens onto the consumer. My constituency of Corio is an electorate stretching to the north of Geelong and inland to the City of Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula. It includes a lot of regional communities like St Leonards, Portarlington, Lara and Anakie, and mail delivery is a vital service for these communities. It is a service that keeps citizens engaged with one another and drives local economies. A second-rate Australia Post simply is not good enough for them and it is not good enough from this government. The member for Corangamite, a good friend of mine, represents the other part of Geelong and, in that sense, we share the representation of Geelong in this place. In November 2013 she said: I appreciate that Australia Post's letters business is under significant financial pressure. However, for people living in regional cities and country towns, mail delivery is a vital service. Country people matter and services to regional Australia matter. Hear, hear to that! The member for Corangamite was absolutely right in what she said in 2013. The critical question now is whether or not the member for Corangamite is standing up to the Minister for Communications to ensure that, in 2015, the proposals that are being put forward do not contradict what made eminent sense to her back in 2013. People living across my electorate rely on this service every day—and many other members will have people living in their regional cities and towns that rely on this service every day. These people matter and they should not be punished by this government's reform agenda for Australia Post's universal services. My office has contacted a number of licensed post offices and small businesses across my electorate. My office has contacted a number of the approximately 28 LPOs across the Corio electorate, and they are telling me that they are already facing serious issues. The cost of keeping their local postal services running, the high level of service that is being demanded from them and from their staff, the rise of online shopping and the financial pressures of an ailing retail sector have added to their complexity. The questions that now need to be encompassed in any reform include whether there will be cuts to employment in the mail services and whether the number of licensed post offices and jobs will remain in Australia or might we see job losses. In short, what we need to hear from this government, and what we need to hear from the member for Corangamite given that she has identified that this is a matter of concern to her, is a ruling out of the shutting of any post office in Geelong—a ruling out of the shutting down of any post office, any LPO, within the electorate of Corio—and a ruling out of the cutting of any staff from Australia Post. If the member for Corangamite and the government are going to be true to their word, the government need to be making that statement now, and it is against that benchmark that the government ought to be held to account. 10:26 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I am very pleased to be able to speak on these appropriation bills today, representing as they do a very central part of government—the need to appropriate money to run the activities of the government. The word 'appropriation' is quite relevant because it is a strong word. To appropriate means to take, and the reality is that what governments do, through the force of law, is say to their citizens that they are required to pay certain amounts through taxation and then the government seeks to use those funds for the betterment of the community. It is done through the force of law, and members of our community are required to comply with government rules about taxation and so on. As a result, it is incredibly important that, when we do appropriate money from the people and businesses of Australia, we use that money wisely, because it cannot be morally right to take money from the people of Australia unless we are using that money in the most sensible fashion possible. There is an immense contrast here. Under the previous government, the levels of appropriation rose to record amounts and the inefficiency with which that money was spent also rose to record levels. My electorate of Banks has many characteristics, and one of the characteristics is that people in my electorate do not like to see their money wasted. They absolutely accept the need to pay tax to contribute to the caring of people less fortunate in our society and the many other things that government does. What they object to, and rightly so, is when that money is wasted or used in a bad way, and that is exactly what happened under the previous government. What I want to do this morning is talk a bit about where we have come from, after the six years of a Labor government, and where we are now with respect to the use of government money and where we might go back to should the ALP ever come back into power. As the shadow Treasurer described it, the 'opening salvo in the battle of ideas' has been launched in the form of tax No. 1 from the ALP in recent weeks. I think it is important to reflect a little on what might happen there, which I will do in a moment. Let's talk a bit about the evidence of the six years of Labor. One thing that is extraordinarily consistent is that, in every year of ALP budgets, they ended up having to appropriate more money than they forecast they would. So, for every single budget, they said they would need a certain amount of money but they ended up taking more every time. The amounts vary. In 2009-10 they were only out by $1 billion; they thought it would be $338 billion but it was actually $339 billion. What is $1 billion between friends? In 2010-11 they were out by $1.5 billion; they thought it would be $354.6 billion but it was actually $356.1 billion. In 2012-13 they got it wrong by $6.3 billion; they thought it was going to be $376 billion but it was actually $382 billion. The year 2011-12 was not so good; they got that wrong by nearly $12 billion. They said in the budget that they would spend $365.8 billion but they actually spent $377.7 billion. So that was a $12 billion difference, which is quite extraordinary. In 2008-09, which won the award here, they projected that they would spend $292 billion but they actually spent $324 billion. They spent $32 billion more than they had forecast in their own budget. So, every single time, they spent more than they said they would. That is a very consistent theme and it sends a very clear message about the manner in which they manage the budget. I want to move to a small indicative example of budget management under the previous government. This concerns a relatively small program, a program in an area which is an important area of public policy, and that is dementia. When the Labor Party were in government they said that they would introduce a dementia supplement to assist people suffering from that condition. Clearly, on both sides of the House, we would acknowledge the importance of providing assistance where we can to people in that situation. Jacinta Collins, the senator who had the responsibility for this, described these as historic reforms, saying that these were the most substantial reforms to Australia's aged-care system in a generation and that they followed extensive community consultation. The consultation must have been, at least to some extent, inadequate, because Senator Collins thought this would cost $11.7 million in 2013-14 but it actually cost $135 million. That is about an 11 times difference. That figure is dramatically out. It really speaks to this issue of having the capacity to plan in a sensible way and to understand operations, to understand how things will play out in the real world, as opposed to being able to issue a press release. That is a damning indictment. They thought it would cost $12 million and it cost $135 million. In the scheme of the federal budget, that is a relatively small amount, but there were so many of these examples right across the previous government's unhappy tenure. The good news is that we now have a government in place that is managing the funds of Australia in a much better fashion. The evidence of that is very clear. Let's have a look at immigration. There was an extraordinary blow-out in immigration costs under the previous government. There are a lot of things in the immigration portfolio, but the key reason for the blow-out was the complete loss of control of Australia's borders: $11 billion, 50,000 people arriving and the tragic humanitarian consequences of that policy. Under this government, the cost of the immigration portfolio is declining; it is coming down substantially. It was $4.4 billion in 2013-14, and in the current year it comes down to $4.2 billion. It is expected to come down to $3.5 billion the year after that, $3 billion the year after that and $2.8 billion in 2017-18. That can happen because of the very effective stewardship of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, both the previous minister and the current minister. That is an extraordinary contrast. Under the previous government it was completely out of control in a humanitarian and a financial sense, but, through the strong management of the current government, it is very firmly under control. We see the same thing with the NBN. Someone will inevitably have the job of chronicling the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments in some detail. When they do that, someone will have to write a very lengthy chapter about the NBN, because the mismanagement and rank amateurism that we have seen in the planning of the NBN is really in a class of its own. They originally said it was going to cost about $10 billion, and the government was going to put in $4.7 billion. Then they said, 'No, actually, sorry, it is going to cost $43 billion, but private investors are going to put up 49 per cent of that'—which did not happen. That is a big increase, from $10 billion to $43 billion. Then, when we conducted a proper and thorough review of this soon after coming into government, it turned out it was on track to be about $72 billion—that is a lot more than $10 billion. This is a particularly interesting point: the estimate of $72 billion was based on the assumption that it would cost about $2,200 to $2,500 to wire up each premises with the fibre-to-the-premises strategy. As we found in Senate estimates last week, it turns out that it was actually costing $4,300 per premises, not $2,500. It was $73 billion on the assumption that it would be about $2,500 per home, but it was actually $4,300 per home. That means that even the estimate of $73 billion was low. So a program that was originally supposed to cost the taxpayer $4.7 billion was on track to cost well in excess of $73 billion. That is absolutely scandalous. What we are seeing under the Minister for Communications, so ably assisted by his parliamentary secretary, is a much more sensible rollout, a rollout that makes use of a range of technologies, not just one—because there are a lot of different ways of getting high-speed broadband to the home—and at a much, much lower cost. Importantly, it is actually happening. We are not saying construction has commenced, when there is simply a piece of paper showing someone would have liked construction to have commenced. Construction has commenced if construction has actually commenced. That is a very important contrast. Infrastructure is another one. Not a lot happened in infrastructure under the previous government. The M5, particularly the M5 East, is a big issue in my electorate of Banks. I do not know if you have ever travelled on the M5 East in Sydney, but if you have it can be a very unpleasant experience, due to the traffic. The previous government said they would provide some funding to the New South Wales government to help build the M5 East, but with a whole range of completely untenable conditions. As a consequence, it did not happen. No money was provided. This government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, said if you commit to building productivity-enhancing infrastructure we will back you. We will back you 100 per cent. We provided $1.5 billion in cash plus a concessional loan of $2 billion. That has meant that the M5 East duplication—it is actually more than a duplication, because it is going to go from four lanes to 10—is actually happening. We expect that duplication to be in place in 2019, which is a fantastic improvement and a good example of when you appropriate money for the purpose of running a government you must do so cautiously and carefully, but to appropriate money for the purpose of building infrastructure that a) helps business to do business more quickly, and b) helps people to spend more time with their families—that is a very sensible appropriation indeed. The third thing I wanted to talk about is what happens under the alternative model. There were some very illuminating newspaper articles and various comments made, particularly in January, when the opposition was surprisingly open about its plans. The shadow Treasurer said very clearly, 'Revenue measures are on the table.' Part of the Year of Ideas—I suspect pretty much all of the Year of Ideas—will be so-called revenue measures. Generally, that means tax increase—'revenue measure' sounds a bit better, but basically it means a tax increase. On 27 January the shadow Assistant Treasurer wrote this fascinating op-ed article in The Australian, where he really wept at the grave of the carbon and mining taxes, really lamented their demise. He said: … the Abbott Government has thrown out significant sources of revenue like the carbon price and the mining tax … He actually provided some advice to the Assistant Treasurer, saying that Mr Frydenberg should be pressing his colleagues to 'reconsider some of the decisions' related to the carbon tax and the mining tax. I am very confident the Assistant Treasurer will not take that advice, because it is very poor advice indeed. These were job-killing taxes that significantly increased the cost of household living expenses. The opposition has said clearly that revenue measures are coming. There is going to be a whole range of announcements, we can assume, about revenue measures and tax increases. We had the first one this week. This was a somewhat complex issue that relates to the capitalisation rules for foreign entities. There have been big headlines saying it is going to raise $2 billion. It would raise absolutely nothing of the sort. It was described by the shadow Treasurer as the opening salvo in the battle of ideas—quite a grand pronouncement. But that is a salvo from a very small popgun. Because this proposal, as the Business Council of Australia said, has 'the potential to slow economic growth and further diminish Australia's competitiveness'. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry said it has the potential to 'make Australia a less attractive place for international investment, thereby pushing new projects offshore and hurting jobs'. That cannot be a sensible thing. We do wait with interest for the Year of Ideas. I am very confident that the vast majority of the ideas will be new taxes leading to further appropriations of money from the Australian people and Australian companies, and that is the wrong path. This government has demonstrated the right way to manage the nation's finances. 10:41 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Almost one in five Australian women over the age of 18, as we heard yesterday, have experienced violence by a current or previous partner in their lifetime. Only one in five of those reported it to the police. Men who are victims of violence are even less likely to report family violence, with only one in 20 men who have experienced current partner violence reporting that to the police. Three in five victims of violence by a previous partner also reported having children in their care at the time of the relationship, and more than a third said that these children had witnessed the violence. These are shocking figures. For far too long violence in the home was treated by the police, by the law and by wider society as a private problem. Slowly, we have seen a long overdue change to that attitude. We have seen laws changed. We have seen policing strategies change. We have seen attitudes change. It has come after many years, indeed, many decades, of work, particular by the feminist movement, the women's refuge movement and others. The violence that used to be a shameful secret with so many women and children, and, indeed, some men, living in terror in their own homes is now talked about. It is now understood to be the crime that it is—not an accident, not an outburst, not an incident, but an act of criminal violence every bit as serious as an assault on the street. And worse in some ways, because it occurs where we should feel safest, and at the hands of a person we should be able to trust. When Rosie Batty became the Australian of the Year I think many Australians were so pleased to welcome that, because of her own dignity and resilience, but also as a sign that our country was continuing to move forward, continuing to make the much needed reforms to support, protect and help the victims of, and those fleeing, domestic violence. But the truth is that despite the great achievements of decades past many challenges still remain. Those challenges are best illustrated by the figures I used earlier. This is why Labor, in government, set up the National Council to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children. That council did wonderful work in consulting more than 2,000 Australians: survivors of violence, perpetrators of violence, educators, service providers, people living in rural and remote areas, members of Indigenous communities and culturally and linguistically diverse communities, women with disabilities, older women, members of the judiciary and police. Out of this consultation process came the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, which set the direction for better, more integrated services and for necessary changes at state and federal level. This was the first time that we had a truly national plan, which state, territory and federal governments agreed to, that set targets and described how we would get there. The plan included an $86 million investment to drive nationwide change in culture, behaviour and attitudes that underpin violence against women and children. It included research initiatives, including the establishment of the Australian National Research Organisation for Women's Safety, ANROWS, and key measures focused on prevention and on innovative and integrated service delivery. We provided additional funds for legal services and for homelessness programs, because we know that women escaping violence need legal support and need somewhere to go. We made sure that the right for victims to be able to request flexible work arrangements was included in the Fair Work Act, so that those who were experiencing family violence could stay in work, keep their jobs and stay safe at work. Many workplaces have now taken that a step further and have included domestic violence leave provisions as a workplace entitlement. For example, women might need time off to attend court, and being able to speak confidentially to your employer and explain why you are taking leave that day is very important. We invested in programs to improve community safety and to tackle family violence in Indigenous communities. Of course, this work is not done. Our efforts must be unceasing. Our determination must not waver. Our commitment must only increase. I am sad to say—though I do not doubt the commitment of members of parliament on both sides of this parliament—that some of the resources to pursue those commitments have been lost in recent times. In the past 18 months desperately needed funds have been cut from front-line services. The cuts were compounded in my own state by further cuts from the state Liberal government. Around Australia more than 50 different services, which provide victims of domestic violence with services ranging from applying for intervention orders to obtaining emergency food and medical supplies, are cutting staff, slashing programs or closing entirely. These services must have certainty. The women who need them deserve certainty. Instead they face uncertainty and reduced resourcing. Labor committed $42 million to community legal initiatives in 2013, much of which would assist victims of family violence. There are 190 community legal centres in Australia that play a vital role in day-to-day family violence casework. The centres help women negotiate the process of getting family violence orders, they advise them of their legal rights and options, and they bring a unique insight into how the legal system impacts victims and perpetrators. The legal assistance sector has faced $43 million in cuts from the Abbott government over the forward estimates. Community legal centres have no funding certainty beyond June 2015. Cuts announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in 2013 included $6.5 million cut from legal aid commissions and $3.6 million cut from family violence prevention legal centres. The National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services, which specifically work with Indigenous families across 14 organisations, will be forced to close unless new funding is found. The executive director of the Women's Legal Centre (ACT and Region), which covers a large area, not just of the ACT, but also of southern New South Wales, has said that the centre will have to turn away 500 women a year after losing $100,000 in federal funding over the next two financial years. This centre assists about 1,200 women a year. Two-thirds of those women have recent experience of domestic violence, and two-thirds of those women earn less than $35,000 a year. Many of the centre's clients earn much less than that, and some earn nothing at all. In Victoria alone, another 14 community legal centres will lose front-line family violence specialists. The Murray Mallee Community Legal Service will lose their full-time lawyer specialising in intervention orders and family violence work. Last year, that lawyer single-handedly dealt with 150 intervention orders. Women's Legal Service Tasmania will lose $100,000 a year from 1 July 2015. That is fully one-third of their Commonwealth funding, which means, literally, that many hundreds of women and their children will be missing out on legal support each year during what is probably going to be the toughest time of their lives. These legal services provides a vital help to thousands of women, many of whom are victims of family violence. Without their specialised and expert assistance in family law and family violence matters, and their emphasis on early intervention, thousands of women will go without help. Many programs and services which provide emergency relief, family relationship counselling, financial counselling, homelessness support and settlement services—services crucially important to women fleeing violent homes—depend on community grants, which of course have also been cut. Yet, this government has cut $271 million from the discretionary grants program since May 2014 which will impact these services in unprecedented ways. In New South Wales Burwood Community Welfare Services, which operates six direct programs to Sydney's inner west dealing with housing and homelessness, financial counselling and other matters, has had all its Commonwealth funding cut. Another Blue Mountains based service, which lost $125,000, will no longer be able to provide either emergency food or emergency medication for women and children. In New South Wales we have seen the impact of that across the board in refuges, in homelessness services and in services providing emergency relief. Mr Husic interjecting— Ms PLIBERSEK 83M My colleague speaks of the Mount Druitt community centre that has also seen funding cuts. Family violence is the leading cause of homelessness for women and children, but under this government housing and homelessness programs have also been cut. In the first budget, $44 million was cut out of homelessness services and there is no funding certainty beyond 2015 in the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. That $44 million is all of the new building money in the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. The National Rental Affordability Scheme has been abolished—a scheme that has provided homes for thousands of women and children. It would have been set to provide homes for thousands more, and it has been cut. They have abolished the National Housing Supply Council and they have cut funding for the National Affordable Housing Agreement. These cuts put at risk programs like Safe At Home, services located in the Perth metropolitan region which help victims of domestic violence stay in their own homes, with security and other upgrades, which see perpetrators required to leave rather than uprooting victims of violence and their children. There are the Western Australian services that help women who have fled to refuges find more permanent housing in the private rental market and support them for their first year. Neither of these successful programs has any certainty past June. It is not just Australian women who are suffering from cuts to services that help victims of violence. The cuts to our aid budget—$11.2 billion across the forward estimates; incidentally, there was a cut at every budget and at each of the two updates since the government was elected—undermine the work that Australia has been globally renowned for in supporting victims of violence, particularly in our region. This includes the work that we have supported in the past by the Vanuatu Women's Centre that I visited with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in December 2013. That centre is run by remarkable women. It is run for women and their children. It has 37 island based committees across the country and since 2007 has helped more than 10,000 survivors of family violence with counselling, legal assistance and accommodation. It works hard to improve educational and economic outcomes for women too. That centre provided 4,267 people with counselling and support services across all six provinces in 2012-13. Follow-on surveys suggest that 95 per cent of clients were satisfied with the counselling they received. They have also helped 280 at-risk women to obtain family protection orders. That is just one of the outstanding aid projects that Australian aid funding has supported in the past in addressing violence against women and children. Another example is the domestic violence awareness training for police in Solomon Islands, which I was also privileged to see. In 2015, our community accepts that violence in the home is not a second-order issue; it is not a private problem; it demands a government response, specialist services, co-ordinated delivery and resources on the ground. I do not doubt for a moment that people on both sides of this parliament are united in their implacable opposition to domestic violence, but it takes more than fine words. It takes resources. The cuts to these resources will be deeply damaging to the very services that help women fleeing domestic violence. 10:56 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I want to express my absolute alarm over an action that the Victorian government is considering taking, and that is annulling the compensation payable if they breach the East West contract and doing that through a legislative instrument. This is an extraordinary proposition. Even the discussion of this proposal to legislate away the compensation payable is causing the business community to be concerned about future investment in Victoria. If the Andrews government goes ahead and puts this legislation through the parliament, it would put Victoria back to the Cain-Kirner era of governance and make every investment in Victoria more risky and, consequently, more expensive for every future investment project. What does this mean? This means ultimately fewer investments in Victoria and fewer jobs for Victoria. Victoria as a state already has to deal with the most militant unions in the country, causing some global companies to literally boycott doing any construction in the state of Victoria. If Premier Andrews legislates to annul contractual rights, he will be trashing Victoria's reputation and the impacts will reverberate across Australia. How did we get to this position? I would like to give you a bit of context. This is not a new initiative. It has not even been a partisan initiative. For almost nine years, both parties in Victoria have encouraged it, facilitated it or actively supported it, until only a few months ago. When you look at some of the history, for example, you see that it was initially put on the table by the Victorian Labor government when they commissioned the Eddington report in March 2006, almost nine years ago to the day. In 2008, the important Eddington report was tabled and it made 20 recommendations. There were two very significant infrastructure recommendations, one of which was, of course, an 18-kilometre road connection, including tunnels, linking the Eastern Freeway with Footscray, CityLink and the Western Ring Road—that is, the East West Link as we know it today. In that report, Sir Rod Eddington made some very decisive comments. He said: The evidence is clear: doing nothing is not an option. The evidence is also clear that failing to take action will undermine Melbourne's future prosperity and reduce the benefits being generated by the city's growth and development. Premier John Brumby responded to that report in August 2008. He said: One way or another we've got to address this issue of a second east-west crossing and … one way or another … we've got to build capacity on the public transport system. The Victorian Labor government at that time commissioned the report themselves, which recommended the East West Link. The Labor Premier at the time, Mr Brumby, had actively supported the proposal. Julia Gillard herself, an emerging leader, said that: There are a range of possible options but I think everyone is recognising that something needs to be done to deal with traffic congestion from the west of Melbourne into the city. The AWU at the time, which was led by the now Leader of the Opposition, actually said something in 2008. He would no doubt recall, sitting opposite me now, that it said: The Australian Workers Union (AWU) believes that the new east–west link is crucial to jobs and economic growth. A new transport link from Melbourne’s booming west to the south east and eastern suburbs has the AWU’s strong support because the Victorian economy relies on the efficient movement of freight and people. In fact, it actually went further than that in that. It makes comments about people who were opposing this. It said in that submission, back in 2008 when Bill Shorten was the leader of the AWU: Opponents may prefer a declining population as the best means of dealing with congestion and the challenges of growth as their children leave the state to search for better jobs and migrants choose other destinations. However, such a proposition would never be supported by the AWU. Better solutions are at hand. That solution that was at hand then, as it is today, was the East West Link project. We are now in this situation and Daniel Andrews now has a choice. There are three options available to him. Now that the Prime Minister has arrived, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. STATEMENTS 20 STATEMENTS Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 20 11:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I seek leave of the House to amend the motion relating to the first anniversary of the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. Leave granted. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I move the motion as amended: That this House: (1) note that the 8th of March will mark 12 months since Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 disappeared from radar over the South China Sea; (2) extend its heartfelt sympathies to the family and friends of the 239 passengers and crew on board, including six Australian citizens and one Australian resident, who have suffered a harrowing 12 months of uncertainty and sorrow; (3) acknowledge the hard work and perseverance of all those working on the international search and recovery effort, led by Australia, to locate the missing aircraft; and (4) note the work of Airservices Australia and their counterparts in Malaysia and Indonesia in leading global efforts to enhance aircraft flight tracking. For the world, the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 is one of the great mysteries of our time. For the families and loved ones of those on that flight, it is a harrowing nightmare. Seven who called Australia home were on board flight MH370. Rodney and Mary Burrows, Catherine and Robert Lawton, Li Yuan, Gu Naijun and Paul Weeks were mums and dads, spouses and partners, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and mates and best friends. They were all irreplaceable to their families, friends, workplaces and communities. Every family has a story of loss and we are honoured today to be joined by the Burrows, Lawton and Weeks families. Thank you for joining us. We know that these anniversaries are painful beyond words. The message of this parliament to all of the families of MH370 is that you remain in our thoughts and prayers. To you and to all those with loved ones aboard that fight, my pledge is that we are taking every reasonable step to bring your uncertainty to an end. It has been the biggest search operation of its kind in history and it has been an extraordinary example of international corporation. In the first few weeks, 28 search aircraft from Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea and the United States completed 345 sorties into the southern Indian Ocean. Ships from Australia, China, Malaysia, the United Kingdom and the United States also joined the search. As the search from the air and on the surface reached its conclusion, Australia began the largest underwater search ever carried out in an area that had never been mapped before. To add to the difficulty, the search zone is in the Roaring Forties, which is one of the world's roughest stretches of ocean. Despite these difficulties, over 26,800 square kilometres of the mapped ocean floor have been searched in detail, which is about 40 per cent of the priority search area. With sadness, I have to admit to the House that so far we have not found any trace of MH370. I do reassure the families of our hope and expectation that the ongoing search will succeed. I cannot promise that the search will go on at this intensity forever, but we will continue our very best efforts to resolve this mystery and provide some answers. It is right on this anniversary that Australia thank Malaysia and China for their cooperation and friendship in this sad and difficult task. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of the High Commissioner of Malaysia, the ambassador of the People's Republic of China and representatives of the other countries who lost their citizens on MH370. We grieve with you for the loss of your people and we thank you for the compassion that you have shown to us for the loss of our people. All of the men and women who have striven from the sky and on the ocean to unravel the fate of MH370 deserve our deepest thanks. The members of the Joint Agency Coordination Centre have supported the families of those aboard MH370 in word and in deed. They have demonstrated the best traditions of public service. I acknowledge the leadership of Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston, one of our nation's great servants. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is tirelessly going about its work. We have four vessels working in the search area now. We are using cutting-edge technology and world experts in underwater search operations. Finally, on this anniversary, it is right to say that the loss of MH370 demonstrated a fundamental gap in tracking long-haul flights, particularly over the oceans. This is not the first major aircraft to go missing and, tragically, it may not be the last. In this day and age it seems inexplicable that the technology and systems were not in place to provide us with the exact position of this plane at all times. The grief of the families has been compounded by this failure. Last weekend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia will conduct a trial to track aircraft over the oceans more closely. I thank our friends in Malaysia and in Indonesia for their commitment to this essential project. While it is not a complete answer, it will deliver immediate improvements in the way we track aircraft, while more comprehensive solutions are developed and implemented. We must ensure that no families will ever again have to endure the suffering of the families of the MH370 passengers. On this first anniversary we remain hopeful that we will solve this baffling mystery and bring the peace of knowing to the family and friends of all aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. 11:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the Prime Minister for his words. 'Winter is come and gone, but grief returns with the revolving year.' Shelley wrote those words nearly 200 years ago when mourning the loss of his friend John Keats. Today, as we pay our respects to the 239 souls lost aboard MH370, we offer our heartfelt condolences to those for whom a year has come and gone yet their grief abides. The thoughts of all of us in this place are with everyone for whom the passing of the year has brought only conflicting internet rumours and scarce solace. In particular, we think of the friends and loved ones of the seven on board for whom Australia was their home: Rod and Mary Burrows, bound for China with their friends; Catherine and Robert Lawton, looking to see a bit of the world; young Sydney couple Li Yuan and Gu Naijun, heading for Beijing and their precious children; and Paul Weeks, a New Zealander who had made a life in Perth, a loving husband, a father, on his way to his dream job. Our hearts go to you, the people they loved. None of us can truly know the sorrow that you have endured. I cannot imagine what it is to bear the burden of private grief in the public spotlight. I cannot begin to understand that terrible first moment when praying for a miracle and hoping for the best gives way to despair and facing the worst. Yet all of us in this place—indeed, all Australians—know what it is to lose someone we love. We can at least appreciate that sudden losing-all-the-strength-from-your-body shock of referring to a loved one in the past tense for the first time. We know that this is a year of firsts that you have endured: the first birthday marked, but not celebrated; the first Christmas with an empty place at the table; the first family photo with smiling faces missing—and the moment you relive every time you say or think: 'They would have loved this. I wish they were here. I wish I could talk to them just one last time. I had one more thing to say.' All Australians have known this sadness. All of us have walked this road. This parliament can say to you today that you are not alone. You never will be. We live in a difficult world where the nightly news reports conflicts and challenges and things we are not accustomed to in Australia. I believe this tragedy has resonated more than most not because Australians are cynical or hard-bitten, but because some things are simply beyond our comprehension. But I believe that people feel a greater empathy with your grief, because we all fly. We all entrust ourselves to the principles of flight and aerodynamics—essentially aluminium tubes. At the heart of this tragedy lies, even more frustratingly, a mystery. It is unsolved and it is unresolved. Many of us in this place will board planes later today. We will, without a moment's hesitation, trust in the skills of the pilots, the expertise of the ground crew, and the safety and reliability of the technology. In an era when flying has never been safer and the reach of communications technology has never been broader it still feels impossible to believe that an international commercial airliner could simply disappear, vanish, as if it had never been. I understand that every day that passes makes it feel less likely that we will know the final fate, the resting place. But I, like the Prime Minister, do believe that the answers will emerge. Like the Prime Minister, I have had the privilege of meeting members of the international team involved in the search for MH370. I saw their professionalism, their capacity and their complete dedication to the task. Australians, I think, can be proud of the leadership that our people have shown in this international search mission of unprecedented scale and difficulty. For so long as the search goes on, Australians will be grateful for their dedication, determination and skill. Amongst all of our international coalition, I must record a particular feeling for Malaysia and what it went through over the course of last year. Our thoughts are with that great country. The search for MH370 has united so many countries. Today it unites us all. You are most welcome in this parliament. We understand that you would give anything not to have had to be here, but you should know that we stand united with you over the loved ones you have lost. We stand united in our support for the skilled work of the international search team. We are united in our deep respect for the memory of the missing. May they rest in peace. The SPEAKER SE4 I ask all present to stand in their places as a mark of respect. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER SE4 I thank the House and all those present. Debate adjourned. BILLS 22 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 22

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015

Second Reading 22 11:16 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I rise to continue the discussion which I had begun to outline before we had two very moving speeches from the Prime Minister and the opposition leader to mark the tragedy which occurred a year ago today. I also acknowledge that and the people who have been here in the gallery and add my respects as well. I was in the process of discussing the context in which we now have a situation where the Victorian government is seriously considering legislating to remove compensation that would be payable if they tore up the East West Link contracts. I was pointing out that this East West Link idea has been on the table now for almost nine years, since the commissioning of the Eddington report, the tabling of that report and the warm endorsement that the key recommendations got, of which the East West Link was one. Following that, the Baillieu and Napthine governments put money towards the planning, development and, subsequently, contracting of it. There was then a change in government and we are now in the position today where the Daniel Andrews Labor government is threatening to take the action I have outlined. The Andrews government, given the context, has three options available to it. The first option is that Mr Andrews could honour the contract that was signed by the Victorian government. This is the most sensible course of action and it perfectly aligns with the firm commitments that he gave pre-election. The pre-election commitment he gave was, 'Sovereign risk is sovereign risk. A contract is a contract.' This was said by Daniel Andrews on 13 August 2014. Ms Burke interjecting— Mr TUDGE M2Y The member for Chisholm may want to listen to what he said pre-election. He said: "A responsible government—a government that actually values our state's reputation and good name—doesn't rip up contracts." That is what Daniel Andrews said pre-election. He made a firm commitment to the Australian people that he would not rip up contracts. Tim Pallas, the then shadow Treasurer, said similar things. It is the standard way that governments operate. Regardless of what a government might think of a contract made by the previous government, it is the strong convention that contracts are honoured. That is the strong convention. People know that. Daniel Andrews knew that. Bill Shorten knows that. He has said so himself. Chris Bowen knows that. He has said so himself. No doubt even the member for Chisholm, who has been interjecting—and I would have thought her constituents would support this project—acknowledges that the standard convention in a country like Australia is that if a contract is signed by the government of the day it is a contract which is honoured even if there is a change of government subsequently. Ms Burke interjecting— Mr Mitchell interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER PK6 The parliamentary secretary is entitled to be heard in silence. Mr TUDGE M2Y If Mr Andrews does go ahead and honour the contract and build the road he will have overwhelming support from Victorians. Every single poll has indicated that. By honouring the contract, the road would be built. That would mean 7,000 jobs. It would mean a road that would finally link the Eastern Freeway to the Western Ring Road and the Tullamarine Freeway. It would take pressure off the Monash in the process. The roads in Melbourne are not getting less congested. In fact, our population is growing very rapidly. It is growing by something like 100,000 people per year. The projections are that by 2030 there will be twice as many heavy vehicles on the road as there are today. So this is a project that is not just for today; it is to build for the future as well. We know what the population projections are. We know what the heavy vehicle projections are. People are not going to be riding their bicycles, as Daniel Andrews might suggest, to and from Ringwood or Wantirna or the member for McEwen's electorate. They are still going to be relying upon their cars and increasingly public transport as well to get around. That is the first option—to actually honour the contract. His second option is to breach the contract and pay the compensation for this breach. Again, this option is a poor one, because the compensation itself will come to something like $1.2 billion. That has to be kept in mind, because the overall state contribution was only ever going to be $1.5 billion. It would seem bordering on insanity to throw $1.2 billion on the scrap heap in compensation when for $1.5 billion he could get the road built, 7,000 jobs created and a piece of infrastructure which will last for absolute decades. The final option is the one that is under active consideration now and that I have mentioned—that is, to legislate away any compensation payable for breaching the contract. This is the catastrophic option for Victoria and Australia. It would mean, as I said at the outset, uncertainty for every single infrastructure project agreed to in the future. Uncertainty leads to higher costs as companies factor in risk premiums. In some cases, businesses will just not bid, because they believe it not worth their while. One national company CEO has already mentioned to me that his global board will not fund projects in Victoria, because of the risk of industrial militancy. This proposal would just add to that risk in Victoria. The principle of honouring contacts, or having certainty about compensatory clauses if contracts are breached, goes to the heart of what makes countries wealthy. Every single developmental economist will tell you this. They say that two key ingredients absolutely underpin economic growth: one is property rights, and the other is enforceable contracts. Those two preconditions are so important and one of the reasons that developed countries are wealthy today. It is very rare for infrastructure projects to be cancelled in First World countries. It is even rarer in democracies for a contract to be retrospectively annulled by a legislative instrument. It is, unfortunately, not uncommon in developing countries. The World Bank, in a report that they have produced, notes that this does occur much more often in developing countries. Many of those developing countries are struggling with their economic growth, in part because they cannot rely upon contracts which have been signed and cannot rely that they will be delivered upon. We do not want to join with those developing countries. We should honour contracts that are signed and we should get on with actually delivering them, and that is what Daniel Andrews should do. Let me finish by mentioning the position of the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. Mr Shorten today is being a brother in arms with Daniel Andrews in threatening to destroy Victoria's sovereign risk profile. He did not always have that position, by the way. When he was the AWU leader, he strongly supported the East West Link. He said that it was absolutely vitally important for the economic growth of our state. He also said that when he was a member of parliament—along with many other members of parliament, including Julia Gillard, expressing their very strong support for the East West Link project. Even as recently as 2014 it was mentioned by Chris Bowen, the shadow Treasurer. He said: Bill Shorten and I are of one mind, Labor honours contracts. Labor in Government honours contracts entered into by previous governments. Even if we don't like them for issues of sovereign risk Labor honours contracts in office signed by previous governments. That was Chris Bowen on 11 September 2014. We are now in the position, though, unfortunately, where Bill Shorten has been asked at least five times whether he supports Daniel Andrews' proposals to tear up the contact and potentially legislate to remove any compensation. He is just squibbing it now. He is squibbing it. He should stand up for Victorians, and he should stand up for what he has said in the past—that is, honouring contracts and building the East West Link, because that is the best course of action for Victorians. 11:26 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley This bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015, deal with appropriations for the Mid-Year Fiscal and Economic Outlook, which is established under the Charter of Budget Honesty. Today we also have the release of the fourth Intergenerational report, which is part of that framework, and in a couple of months we will have this government's second budget. All of these events go to the core of the Charter of Budget Honesty. These things are happening at a time when we have depressed business and consumer confidence and that depressed confidence is pushing up unemployment and smothering economic growth. The fact that Australia has an unemployment rate with a six in front of it for the first time in a decade is a product of a government that is out of its depth and out of touch and whose strict adherence to ideology over evidence-based policy is now producing chronic political instability and further economic uncertainty. Today's IGR will add another sorry chapter to their trash talking of the Australian economy, their trash talking of Australia's economic prospects and their trashing of key economic institutions that go to the core of the Charter of Budget Honesty and their forecast. In particular, I think what is most sad about what we are seeing is the debasing of our Treasury, which has had a degree of independence and respect here and globally, and that is being lost. The Intergenerational report is meant to be an independent long-term planning report. But, to save their own jobs and to play politics, that has all been debased. Essentially with this IGR today and also with what they have done with previous forecasts—including the very sacking of the Treasury secretary for the first time in 114 years—this government has put a wrecking ball through the Charter of Budget Honesty and, in the process, has degraded the independence and the professionalism of the Australian Treasury. I want to step back and have a look at economic conditions over the last six or seven years. The global economic conditions which now prevail—and have prevailed since the coalition was elected 16 months ago—are a sea of tranquillity compared to the global economic conditions that our Labor government faced over almost six years The global economy and international financial markets have regained a degree of stability which was lost during the global financial crisis and the aftershocks that followed it, for around five or six years. This period of relative calm should have provided this new government with the perfect opportunity to consolidate the transition from mining sources of growth to non-mining sources of growth. At the end of 2013, Australia was in a sound position for consolidation and transition precisely because of the very big decisions that the Labor government took to ensure that Australia did not experience a profound recession, which is what occurred elsewhere in the global economy. We made decisive and significant calls which meant we did not see the capital destruction and the prolonged and high levels of unemployment that characterised most other developed economies. Our intervention to secure the Australian economy, to secure almost one million jobs over six years, was one of the most significant structural interventions that a government has taken in this country's history or indeed in the history of many other developed economies. That is why our economy, at the end of 2013 and in early 2014, was 15 per cent bigger than it was at the end of 2007—something that no other country came within cooee of. Many countries are still struggling to get back to where they were at the end of 2007 or have just got back past that mark. One of those countries, for example, is the United Kingdom. So, when Labor left office, we had an economy that had grown strongly and was set for a transition from mining sources of growth to non-mining sources of growth. Under the Charter of Budget Honesty, the benchmark for the fiscal position of the country is the benchmark set out in PEFO, the Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook. The deficit in the Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook, determined independently by the departments of Treasury and Finance with no reference at all to either side of politics, was $30.1 billion for 2013-14, forecast to be back in balance by 2016-17. That is the independent benchmark by which this Liberal government can be judged in terms of its stewardship of the finances of our economy. That $30 billion deficit represented a deficit of just 1.9 per cent of GDP. Our net debt was $184 billion, or 11.7 per cent of GDP, one of the lowest in the developed world. Our unemployment rate had a five at the front, and confidence was higher then that it is now. Despite the headwinds that Labor had experienced for all that period, despite the fact that Australia was in such a strong position, why do we now face an outlook where the unemployment rate has a six at the front and confidence is through the floor? Why, when we were head and shoulders above the rest of the developed world and set to make the transition from mining sources of growth to non-mining sources of growth, have we ended up in such a terrible position? It is essentially because we have a government that, for political reasons, in a triumph of politics over policy—politics over evidence based policy—decided to talk down our economy. Consumer confidence is 16 per cent below where it was at the last election. What the government have done is exaggerate deficit and debt for the political purpose of demonising the Labor Party and so they can justify their harsh Tea Party agenda for savage cuts to health and education, and the dismantling of the social safety net. At the core of the erosion of confidence is this government's rhetoric about an economic emergency and a budget crisis. Last week, in Senate estimates, we heard the new head of Treasury say there was no economic emergency, no budget crisis. That is an inconvenient truth for this government because last year's failed budget was built around a deficit and debt falsehood. The government, in its desire to demonise the previous, Labor government and to punish the Treasury for the independence it had shown during the period of our government, sacked the previous Treasury secretary—the first time that has happened in 114 years. Since that time, the government has proudly walked around the country and boasted that it is fiddling the forecasts, that they are not Treasury forecasts—that the forecasts in the MYEFO of 2013, in the budget of 2014 and in the IGR, the latest of which will be published today, are all the work of the government, not the work of the independent Treasury. This government has simply ripped up the Charter of Budget Honesty. It has tainted its own budget papers. Now, why have the government done this? They have done this because they have to get the figures manipulated to the point that the outcomes actually match their bloated rhetoric about deficit and debt. And why have they done that? They have done that because, very simply, they want to justify an agenda that they were not game to 'fess up to before the last election but that had been hidden within their plans for the future for a very long time. If we go right back to the 2013 MYEFO, we can see this political strategy. The first thing they did in that MYEFO was to double the deficits over the forward estimates. They doubled them through decisions that they took, such as giving $9 billion to the Reserve Bank which was not asked for or required. That was completely stupid—but it was political. That was one of the first acts that really shook confidence in our economy amongst prominent businesspeople. So, in their first economic statement under the Charter of Budget Honesty, we saw a deliberate doubling of the deficit. They then went forward to the 2014 budget. They had made significant cuts across the forward estimates; but guess what? None of that money actually went to paying off debt. The cuts they made across the forward estimates in the 2014 budget were simply allocated to new decisions, and in fact net debt went up, so debt was growing. The accumulated deficits forecast in the 2014 budget and the 2014 MYEFO continued to grow, and it is true that some of that was caused by further revenue write-downs, which is a challenge this government has and was a challenge that our government had as well. We do have to be vigilant about making sure that our expenditure is under control, that it is sustainable and that our money is spent efficiently. We, in our time in office, over five budgets, made budget savings of a structural nature of up to $180 billion, and $300 billion right through to 2021. That is the nature of the savings exercises we engaged in, and they got bigger as the revenue write-downs got bigger. But, when you are dealing with budgets, you have to look at both the spending side of the budget and the revenue side of the budget.   The government claims that we left it a spending problem. In last year's budget the Abbott government was planning on spending an average of 24.9 per cent of GDP over the forward estimates. In the last three years of the Labor government our spending averaged 24.6 per cent, less than this government is planning on spending over the next three years. This history is quite important. Australia does not have a spending problem as much as it has a revenue problem. That revenue problem is substantial. In our period in office we lost $160 billion in revenue. By comparison, the Howard-Costello government enjoyed revenue flows that were revised up by $334 billion, of which they managed to spend $314 billion. If Labor had taxed Australian families and businesses at the same rate as Costello did in his last budget, the budget would have been around balance in 2012-13. Australia has a substantial challenge with its revenue. It is both a structural challenge and a cyclical challenge, and it is hitting this government as it hit our government. But what this government seeks to do is deny the nature of that problem and exaggerate the spending so it can get on with its very harsh agenda of ripping up the social safety net and putting in place very savage cuts to health and education. Australia does have a revenue problem of some size, but it also has a problem with an ideological government that is hostile to the very nature of the Australian settlement that has made this country so prosperous and fair over such a long period of time. That bring us to the Intergenerational report, which was released today. The key to this government and its approach to politics and economics was contained in the last budget. It had language in it talking about the lifters and leaners in the Australian economy, and was effectively defining most Australians as leaners. The lifters, in the government's view, are senior business people and probably people in the government and the rest of us are leaners. In the government's view, you do not necessarily create wealth if you clean the halls here early in the morning or if you go and teach a class. In it's world, wealth creators are just a few people with a lot of capital. It's whole agenda is simply about taking the burden of government and slashing it, shifting the tax burden in Australia onto working families away from particular vested interests and corporates. That is the agenda of the government and that drives its every act. It is that motivation more than any other that is behind the rigged Intergenerational report that is published today and that seeks to demonise for political reasons the record of a Labor government that took responsible steps to support our economy during a global recession and understood the nature of the revenue challenge and the spending challenge. The problem is that as it goes through these political manoeuvres—this triumph of politics over policy; this triumph of politics over evidence based policies—all it succeeds in doing is further hitting consumer confidence and business confidence, and that will be the tragedy of what has occurred today. As the Treasury secretary said in estimates last week, this Intergenerational report is not a Treasury document; it is a government document. For the first time in history, it has its own dedicated Liberal Party chapter, produced at public expense. It has a chapter devoted to politics, to political point-scoring. That is why I said at the beginning of my remarks that what we have actually seen in Australia since this government came to power is the trashing of the Charter of Budget Honesty put in place by the Liberals, by Peter Costello. The purpose of it is to demonise their political opponents. The practical effect of it is to hit confidence. We on this side of the House will continue to fight for decent economic policy which creates jobs, and which ensures that the benefits of growth are shared fairly across our community, and we will continue to fight this attempt to hijack the Australian settlement by the liberal government. 11:41 Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 Calare I am very pleased to rise to speak about the appropriation bills following the release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook report. Listening to the man who was the Treasurer of Australia for six years, the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan, made it impossible not to reflect momentarily on a few things from our recent and not so recent past. I think it is well known that, historically, Labor governments spend well beyond our means and it is up to coalition governments to fix the books and refocus the way in which we look after infrastructure and those things that contribute to Australia's ability to pay the taxes that are needed. Not only did Labor increase spending they increased it on things that did not return to the taxpayer or the Treasury the money to keep spending. I think history bears that out quite well. The Whitlam government was pretty good at spending and had every intention of borrowing money from overseas—from rather dubious sources, as I recall—which would have put us in far greater debt than we otherwise were. The coalition had to sort that out. The best Labor government of my memory was probably the Hawke-Keating one, and even that was unable to avoid leaving us a $96 billion debt. I once did some calculations on what the interest of those years added up to. It would have built a lot of infrastructure around Australia. It took us 10 years, just about spot on, to pay that back. As I say, that was probably the best Labor government that I have seen, and even it took 14 years to run up a bill of $96 billion. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, on the other hand, ran up a huge debt in a mere six years—actually, it was far less than that because they kind of had a year's grace in which they had about a $60 billion surplus, with a positive budget and what we left in the bank, so to speak. When we came to office, one of the first things we had to do was lift Australia's credit limit above $300 billion. Imagine starting off in the black by about $60 billion and, in a very short space of time, causing our credit limit to have to be lifted above $300 billion. It is a well-known figure now, and that is projected to go to $650 billion. In other words, we are now paying $1 billion a month, or $12 billion a year, in interest and it is actually projected to go to three times that. I look at our coalition. We have to be far more pragmatic about the way we sit down with those members of the Senate who are not Labor and not Greens and get the bills through that will allow that to happen. What we have done has certainly had an enormous effect, far more than anyone on the side of the chamber on which I, unfortunately, sit—we have been too successful at the ballot box—would like to concede. I want to talk for a minute about some things that we have done and are doing for the nation, but first I want to touch on how some of those things are working for the electorate of Calare—which I repeat, as I quite often do, is the oldest part of Australia. It is what they first discovered after European settlement. Outside the Sydney Basin, we are the oldest part of regional Australia as far as modern times are concerned. It is where agriculture and mining first got going in a serious sense. The first thing I want to talk about is the $50 billion infrastructure program, which prior to the last election we said we would introduce and which we are doing, including at Forty Bends, which, strangely enough, is just about where Wentworth, Blaxland and Lawson got to 200 years ago in May 1813, when they crossed the mountains. Forty Bends is an example of what that infrastructure program is doing. We turned the sod, or started the bulldozers, for works on a $96 million safety package upgrade for the Great Western Highway on the Sydney side of Lithgow. That is part of a $250 million investment in safety upgrades between Katoomba and Lithgow, probably the most dangerous part of the Great Western Highway. It is high time that this was done and we are only able to do it because of that program. It is an area that has had fatalities and more than 30 accidents in the past few years. It is high time it was done, and it was relief to be able to visit there with the member for Bathurst, Paul Toole, and the mayor, Marie Statham, to kick that off. We have made an election commitment, which we are fulfilling, to provide safety upgrades at this notoriously dangerous stretch of road. We are delivering. We are upgrading the existing two- and thee-lane undivided road to a three-lane divided highway. These are the sorts of things we would like to do everywhere, and we have to get the books in order to be able to continue to do them. Locally, Calare is benefiting hugely from the change of government and the fact that we know that Australia very much needs us to get those books in order. The Business Enterprise Centre for Cabonne, Orange and Blayney recently received $660,000 as part of the small business advisory service from last year's round. It is a vital program. They do a very good job. They help small businesses improve and grow their business. They show them how to look at their work from a more business oriented point of view, how to join the digital economy, as it were, how use IT in a modern way, how to improve their managerial skills and how to improve their relationships and include their staff in what they do. It is a great program and that particular BEC does a great job. Cabonne Council received nearly $1 million to fix a notoriously bad bridge from the Bridges Renewal Program. From the heavy vehicle safety program, Calare received nearly $3 million recently. I mentioned earlier that we are the oldest part of regional Australia in European times. I am very happy to say that, in May this year, Bathurst will celebrate 200 years since Governor Macquarie stood there on the banks of the Macquarie and made it into an actual town. It is the oldest city in Australia outside of Sydney and Hobart. I might have to throw Parramatta in there as well, but it is older than Brisbane, I can assure you. It is older than Melbourne, older than Perth and older than Adelaide. However, we do not want to get anyone stirred up about all that. The point is that, for regional Australia, its 200th anniversary is a very big deal, and we are all delighted that the Commonwealth was able to contribute to making sure that that is a wonderful time and that it will be a longstanding memorial to regional Australia on the banks of the Macquarie. Regarding the NBN, the previous government dreamt this up. I am sure they watched The Hollowmen too often and one day thought, 'That's a great idea.' I remember the episode where they had this wonderful idea—they were going to spend $100 billion, but they never actually worked out what it was going to be spent on. I think that is where the previous government got NBN idea in its original format from. We had to come into government and make it affordable and doable and, from regional Australia's point of view, make it happen—because regional Australia and certainly Calare were not actually on the map to be in it. I can proudly say that Calare would probably have more fixed-wireless towers than any electorate in New South Wales, though I cannot speak for Queensland. We have suddenly refocused this program and made it relevant to those people with the worst receptions, and that is where we have put the dollars. Dubbo, which is obviously in the electorate of Parkes—the electorate of my colleague Mr Coulton—Orange and Bathurst are all going to be on fixed-line over the next two or three years, as indeed they need to be. We have concentrated on those areas with the worst reception. As I said, we were not even on the map as far as the rollout of the NBN until this government got into office. It is not just locally that the coalition is making things work. Getting rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax was big for Australia but it was even bigger for regional Australia. What I think most people overlook is that those of us who live away from the coast and away from the capital cities actually use far more power in a household and living sense, because we live in areas with such bigger varieties of temperature. We get colder and we get hotter, and we need more energy to both cool and make life liveable. It is the same for our small businesses. It costs them more to ensure that their staff and the people who work with them can do so while giving it their all. So getting rid of the carbon tax was a very big thing for regional Australia. It was worth far more to them than the $540 it was believed it was worth per family nationally. While mining might be the biggest export for Australia, it is a very, very big activity in regional Australia. It is where the people are who actually do it; so it is an even bigger thing for regional Australia than for Australia nationally. We had to restore the confidence of foreign companies, because there is nothing as global as mining in the world today—perhaps the arms race might be. Let me tell you, mining is extraordinarily global and we cannot shut ourselves out of it. We have to send the right signals to those who would partner with us. In my electorate I have mining that is owned by Malaysians, Chinese and Australians, and we are very thankful that they want to invest in us. Nationally, I think the most popular program of any government has been Roads to Recovery. I remember it well. I think it was 1996 when it was first launched or it might have been 1997. It was so popular that Labor were not even game to change its name, as much as they wanted to, because it was recognised for what it was and appreciated so well. There is $2.1 billion for that program and a further $565 million to fix troublesome black spot areas, including some in my own electorate and around Australia. I chair the New South Wales Black Spot Consultative Panel. In the last few years funding for black spots has gone from $20 million to $51 million per year over the next two years, and obviously that makes a heck of a difference. I am extraordinarily passionate about agriculture. I have to say that I do not think anything that has happened in recent times has ensured the wellbeing and the future of agriculture. Whether it be in the north of Queensland, in western New South Wales or in Western Australia, we must ensure over the next year or so that our companies and our farmers take advantage of the free trade deals that have been done recently with Korea, Japan and China and the free trade deal with the USA that we did last time we were in government. 11:56 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley It is a pleasure to speak on the appropriation bills but it is also a fact that they are very important. They are very important in setting out a government's agenda about its priorities and where it wants to spend its money. Debate on these bills also gives everyone in this place an opportunity to highlight what a remarkably short-sighted government we have with the current Liberal government and what a remarkably antibusiness government the Abbott government is. While it mouths and pretends to be the best friend of business, what it does in fact is something quite different. It is very easy to say something, but it is much more difficult to actually deliver it. Today, I particularly want to focus on superannuation. At a time when there is a big debate in the community about superannuation, I think everyone should take a very cautious and long-term view. My own view on superannuation is that the debate and the policy and decision making ought to be taken out of the political cycle and ought to be taken out of the budget cycle, for it to be truly sustainable and deliver on its objective, which is to ensure that ordinary Australians can be more independent in retirement—and hopefully completely independent from the age pension—and also to make a difference to the budget. Currently the difference to the budget, through Labor introducing the superannuation guarantee, is a saving of around $7 billion every single year. I do not want to make too big a deal of this, but $7 billion is bit of money and it is pretty important. You need to remember the context of this. Everyone now agrees that superannuation in Australia is such an important factor when it comes to the national health of our economy. Yet the Liberals—particularly the Prime Minister and other people—fought tooth and nail to prevent it ever coming in and have had a lifelong ambition to kill it off. Let there be no mistake in this place: that is on the record; it has been repeated over and over, not just at the time of introduction but consistently. But yesterday we heard a different story from the Prime Minister. If you can believe him, he has finally changed his mind—but there were at least 39 good reasons in his own party as to why he might have changed his mind. Let me tell you a story about how good superannuation is for our economy. Right now there is a little bit over $1.9 trillion in national savings, which puts us at about fourth in the world for funds under management. You can imagine a small-population country like Australia, with the fourth largest funds under management in the world and what that has done in terms of growing our financial services sector, our banking system and our financial system. The fact is that it is one of the best in the world. APRA, the prudential regulator, released some figures recently. The average balance of accounts is quite low. We are still working on them; they need to be much higher. The average account balance in an industry fund is $28,172; in retail funds—banks and for-profits—it is about $29,300; in public sector funds it is around $77,000; and in corporate funds it is around $120,000. That is average, so it does not give you a great picture. The picture it does give you is that it is low and small. We need to keep building on that base. One of the ways you do that is by making sure that superannuation guarantee contributions continue to increase, from nine per cent to 9.5 per cent, from 9.5 per cent to 10 per cent over time, and eventually to 12 per cent, which everybody in the superannuation sector agrees is where we need to be—all except this forward-thinking government here! Their idea of forward-thinking is to look in the rear-vision mirror of the car and say: 'Where have we been in the past? That is where we ought to go in the future.' They are the ones who have stopped the increase in the superannuation guarantee. Who gets to miss out? Ordinary Australian workers. But who really misses out, particularly when we start talking about gender equality and average balances? It is women. About two-thirds of women who work in Australia are the greatest losers under an Abbott government. They are the ones who lose the most, because they also happen to be some of the lowest paid workers in this country. Labor did a lot of good things, but we did two very big things. One is to ensure that superannuation would go from nine per cent to 12 per cent over time and the other is a tax fix of the inequitable treatment of superannuation contributions for people whose taxable income is less than $37,000 year. That is not a lot of money. But those people paid a higher effective tax rate on their superannuation contributions than everybody else. Most of those people are women. We acknowledged that inequity and we fixed it. One of the first things that this Liberal government did was take it away. That is their commitment to superannuation, their commitment to women, their commitment to gender equality, their commitment to the national economy. That is their commitment to our national savings pool that underpins this country. When we talk about fairness, equity, sustainability, gender imbalance—when we talk about the big things Australia has to do, not in the next five minutes but something that is going to sustain our economy in 20 years time—then it is Labor that stands up and does it. If those opposite just disagreed, I would give them that. I would say, 'It is just a disagreement.' But they do not just disagree; they unwind it, undo it and take it away. They are not taking away from the Labor Party; they are taking away from you—from ordinary people, from women, from people who earn less than $37,000 a year. Just to put that into some context, the average superannuation balance across all accounts is about $82,000 for men but only $56,000 for women. Across all accounts, on retirement there is a $92,000 difference. If we are going to get serious about the debate and serious about sustainability in the long term, this is one of the areas we have to work on. So not only have those opposite paused the superannuation guarantee and gotten rid of the low-income superannuation contribution; they find more and more ways to disadvantage ordinary people and to have a massive impact. Look at what that represents in dollar terms for those people by 2025, which a little while ago seemed far away but today seems a little bit closer, particularly since the Intergenerational report is being released today—a very important document, which I will come to in a moment. It will mean $150 billion less for those people in their accounts, in their savings. That is the fact, and that is a tragedy. The numbers are not argued by anyone. It is not as if I am giving numbers that are contested—they are not. The policy cannot be contested, because it is the first thing that the Liberals did when they came into government. So, when it comes to superannuation, we see no fairness. But the Liberals did do one thing. On the one hand, the Liberals talk about sustainability of budgets: 'We have got to look to the long-term. We cannot just spend, spend, spend.' Yes, fine words. What did they do when Labor put in place serious tax measures through two bills in 2013, one on multinational tax avoidance and the other on multinational profit shifting? They voted against it, got rid of it. There is no way they are going to have that—they do not want their mates to pay more tax. We thought they should pay at least fair tax. Australian companies have to pay it; why shouldn't foreign companies as well? We see that in a whole range of areas, and I do not have enough time to cover those. To me there is enough evidence—in fact, a litany of evidence. What we get from the Liberals is consistent; I will at least give them that. It is the nudge-nudge, wink-wink business: 'We are on your side. We are the best friend of Medicare.' That is at the same time as they have been trying to stab it in the belly, if you remember, for a lifetime. There is a solid commitment for you! Just as recently as yesterday, apparently the best way to help people with their medical bills was a GP tax—more tax, another broken promise. That is how we will fix things. We will just tax the lowest end; we will tax people on low incomes. Labor has a view, and I think it is an important one. We think that it should not be your credit card that matters when it comes to health; it should be your Medicare card. It is the same as with education. We think it is your merit and your hard work that should get you into higher education, whether it is TAFE, college, a degree—wherever it is. It should be that that determines your entry, not how much money you have to buy a degree, like they do in other parts of the world. If there is a cost to this country, it is not a real cost in the sense that the Liberals want to make out; it is a contribution to our economy, because we know that educating people, higher education, whether it be finishing year 12, college, TAFE, university, contributes massively. The return to our economy and to every single taxpayer is enormous and should never be overlooked. When it comes to this Liberal government, they are not particularly interested in the facts. It is the nudge-nudge, wink-wink government, to small business in particular. I feel pretty sad for small business, because they were promised a lot, but this is what they were delivered: a wholesale getting rid of every program that was designed specifically to help small business—entrepreneurial programs, skills and education programs—programs that directly assisted small business to grow and thrive. They just wiped the whole lot out. There is this view that it is all just red tape. The baby goes out with the bathwater—rather than picking through and getting rid of certain things. If they want to make things a bit leaner that is fine, but do not through everything out. Do not throw the whole lot out. Do not throw the good stuff out—the really good stuff that actually helps small business. They went further than that. This is what amazes me. If you added it all up across small business, they took away around about $7 billion of assistance—around $5 billion of direct assistance. They will say to you, 'How can we afford this?' I say to you, how can we not afford this? How can we not afford to help small business to employ people, to grow, to innovate—because at the same time that they are doing this the Liberals will come in here and ask you, 'Where are the jobs of tomorrow going to come from?' They are not going to come from the Liberal Party; we know that already. Before the last election Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, repeatedly made a solemn pledge—a promise, hand on heart—'I will deliver a million new jobs,' he said. Well, start counting because right now the metre is going backwards. Unemployment is now 6.4 per cent. That is a tragedy for this country. It represents the highest unemployment since 2002. So, I thought I would just check—like the Treasurer does and says. I asked myself a question. What was the answer to that question? I went and had a look. I asked Treasury a question: in 2002, who was the employment minister that got unemployment up so high? You guessed it—it was Tony Abbott, the now Prime Minister. They talk about being the friends of small business—and I think I have worked something else out as well—whenever they say they are 'the best friend of', watch out. Best friend of Medicare? Knifed through the belly—that means a new tax for Medicare. Best friend of education? Students knifed through the belly—$100,000 fees. Best friend of small business? Through the belly—just knifing them. What do they do? They take away $5 billion of direct assistance. The instant asset tax write-off—a real tax break for small business, that genuinely actually helps them, is not a handout. It actually means that if they invest, we will co-invest. It means that if they do something, we will do something with them. If they employ someone, if they buy an asset or a piece of equipment, we will be there with them standing shoulder to shoulder. Labor's record on small business stands as a record of positive assistance, of making sure that though the world's biggest global financial crisis our industries did not fall over, that our small business people did not find themselves on the scrap heap, and that they did not lose their homes, which they had mortgaged to start their businesses. You will hear the Liberals talk a lot about how small business people make sacrifices. And they do. But how do we support them in that sacrifice? We do not rip away their very lifeline for growth and for continuing to do good things. You should actually support them. What the Liberals do instead, though, is very simple. They take it away. They took away the tax loss carry-back for small business. They took away the special depreciation rules for small business. They took away the research and development tax incentives—where if you invest, we will invest with you. And when it comes to red tape, I am just offended. And I think a lot of small businesses are, because they would rightfully ask themselves right now, 'Has my bottom line changed since we had the bonfire of red tape from the Liberals?' This big let's all have a day off national red tape day—I am sure some of you might remember it. We are just going to burn thousands of pages, which, if you actually look carefully—and I will just show some people in the gallery— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Props are disorderly. Mr RIPOLL 83E This is what was contained on most of the 18,000 pages: they were blank. They got rid of stuff that made no difference to anybody. If I were to ask small business now, 'Does your bottom line in your business look better today or worse than before we had the bonfire on red tape?' Most of them, I think, if they did the sums, would find no difference. This is the problem: no difference. It sounds good and looks good—nudge nudge, wink wink, we are on your side—it just does not add up to anything real. This is the problem: nothing real. Nothing for the future, nothing about sustainability—nothing that actually makes a real difference. In the less than a minute that I have left, I want to touch on the Intergenerational Report, because it is a very important report. It has always been a bipartisan report. It has been a report that is really not about the politics. It is really about what will look like in 2055, but unfortunately it has become a work of fiction. It is now no longer Treasury's report. In fact, the head of Treasury has walked away from it and said it is not ours. It is owned by Joe Hockey. It is his report, not the Treasury's. The head of the fiscal group, when he was asked, said 'It is not ours, it is Joe Hockey's report. It is the Treasurer's report.' They are all walking away from it because it has been politicised, it has been delayed, and there has been fudging on the migration numbers. In fact, it is so fudged it still contains the GP tax measures, which do not exist anymore. Shame on the Liberal government for always attacking the economy and small business. 12:11 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I am pleased to speak on the additional estimates appropriation bills today, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the work our coalition government is doing for all Australians. As a big country, we are faced with many challenges of a geographic nature. This includes vast distances; transport and freight logistics; road networks; telecommunications; and extreme natural disasters such as bushfires, floods, and, of course, as my electorate of Capricornia has recently witnessed, category 5 cyclones. Today, I want to focus particularly on rural and regional Australia. We often hear so much about big cities in this House. Yet city people may not realise that the most important export goods created in this country stem from rural and regional Australia. Industries such as agriculture and mining contribute the most wealth to our national GDP. In rural and regional Australia, our Liberal-National government is helping communities in the bush to obtain better roads, better mobile telephone reception and significant infrastructure projects, that firstly create construction jobs and are then followed by the opportunity for other new ongoing jobs. Some of the programs to which I refer, that we are budgeting for, include: our Roads to Recovery program, helping local councils to fix up local streets and roads; our $500 million roads Black Spot Program, fixing up dangerous blacks spots to reduce road accidents and deaths; our Bridges Renewal Program, funding 50 per cent of the cost to replace old bridges in regional areas; our Stronger Regions fund, providing $1 billion over four years to help rebuild infrastructure and create jobs in regional Australia; our $100 million Mobile Black Spot Program, to fix up telecommunication blackspots; a $300 million drought assistance package to support people doing it tough in the bush; and our promise to spend $6.5 billion to fix the Bruce Highway, our main transport and freight corridor. This important highway runs the full length of Queensland's coastline, linking Cairns to Brisbane via Rockhampton. Many of these programs are costed in our federal budget. Where is the evidence that these things are being successfully rolled out to help regional Australia? I can tell you that, in my electorate of Capricornia in Central Queensland, there are many examples. Capricornia takes in a vast area from the Great Barrier Reef to the inland beef and coalfields. In our 91,000 square kilometres, we have big distances to cover. Therefore, our roads are important infrastructure. While working hard in this electorate in a short 15-month period, I have overseen the following benefits for our road network: $166 million to fix up the notorious Eton Range section of the Peak Downs Highway, which leads into the Central Queensland coalfields west of Mackay; $8.5 million for overtaking lanes on the Bruce Highway between Sarina and Koumala; and $296 million for stage 2 of the Yeppen South flood plain project on the Bruce Highway south of Rockhampton. This impressive project elevates parts of the highway, effectively creating the second longest bridge in Queensland. Its aim is to keep the city open in times of flood, thus keeping the state's freight and economy flowing through to North Queensland. Our government is spending wisely to make our roads safer. We have recently completed three new overtaking lanes, and extended a fourth, along the Bruce Highway between Marlborough and Rockhampton and between Rockhampton and Gladstone. This project was worth $15.5 million. In our budget, we will supply $30 million to five regional shires in Capricornia to help fix local council roads and streets. This comes under our five-year Roads to Recovery program for the bush. The $30 million is being shared between my local councils of Isaac, Mackay, Rockhampton, Whitsunday and Livingstone, and payments have already started being rolled out. But it does not stop there. The Liberal-National coalition has just committed $35 million to the Isaac-Mackay area under our Bridges Renewal program. The money will replace four bridges on the Peak Downs Highway between Nebo and Mackay in my electorate of Capricornia. People who regularly travel the Peak Downs Highway to work in the mines or to provide service and maintenance will appreciate a safer and more reliable highway. Dangerous intersections in local towns are also being fixed-up, thanks to help from our federal Roads Black Spots program. Motorists in places like Rockhampton, Mackay and Yeppoon will be better off due to safer traffic conditions. Under this Liberal-National program we have paid $850,000 to install a roundabout at Kent Street and Denham Street in Rockhampton; $260,000 to install traffic signals with a pedestrian crossing on Thozet and Rockonia roads in Koongal; $55,000 to relocate a pedestrian crossing further north and provide kerb extensions, additional lighting and a median strip at Fitzroy and East streets in Rockhampton's CBD; $166,000 to fix Murray and Derby streets in Rockhampton, with improved visibility at this intersection; $108,000 for the notorious Caroline and Davis streets intersection at Allenstown in Rockhampton; and $102,500 to make Bolsover and Stanley streets safer in Rockhampton. Under this program we have also committed over $1 million to fix up two notorious black spots at Yeppoon. This includes $550,000 to install a roundabout on Queen and Mary streets and $500,000 to install traffic lights at Vaughan Street and Appleton Drive in Yeppoon. We can add to this more important road works in the city of Rockhampton: The federal government poured much-needed money into improving the George and Albert streets highway intersection on the south side of Rockhampton's CBD. This was thanks to a $9.2 million federal contribution. The project, in fact, came in under budget and improved an extremely congested city intersection that sees almost 35,000 cars and heavy vehicles go by each day. Rural and regional Australia was forgotten by the Labor Party. Our government will provide opportunities for new infrastructure Our $1 billion Stronger Regions Fund aims to help rebuild infrastructure and create jobs in regional Australia over the next four years. In my electorate of Capricornia, applications have already been submitted for a contribution towards a new emergency headquarters for the Capricorn Coast Helicopter Rescue Service; a contribution towards a $50 million convention centre in Rockhampton; a contribution to rejuvenate the Fitzroy River precinct to create a new economic and visitor hub in the heart of Rockhampton; and a contribution towards stage 4 of the Yeppoon Foreshore Master Plan, worth about $13 million. If such projects get up, they will create construction jobs and then ongoing opportunities for small businesses to grow our local economy and spur new jobs. Rockhampton and Yeppoon were devastated two weeks ago by Tropical Cyclone Marcia. I call on the federal government to bring forward further funding opportunities in the pipeline from the Stronger Regions Fund so that Capricornia can rebuild and rise from the ashes to create new and vibrant economic opportunities and work for local people. I will be pushing this idea forward in the coming weeks with my ministerial colleagues. To cement a future in regional Australia, we also need vital water infrastructure projects. Projects such as dams and weirs will create opportunities for new agricultural and mining development. Such schemes need bipartisan support from all sides and forms of government. In Capricornia I am pushing for the Connors River Dam between Sarina and Moranbah; the Fitzroy Corridor's Eden Bann and Rookwood weirs near Rockhampton; and the Urannah Dam, which would benefit the struggling town of Collinsville. These three concepts are among 27 water projects listed as priority projects in the recent green paper on agricultural competitiveness and the green paper on Northern Australia. I mentioned that telecommunications was an issue in the bush. Our government's $100 million mobile phone black spots program aims to give bush communities better access to mobile coverage. I have been lobbying hard for the small community of Clarke Creek, near Marlborough, for funding under this initiative. Poor quality internet and mobile phone services at Clark Creek impacts on schooling and community safety. In fact, while on a visit there I made the point that you can make mobile call from the middle of Africa but not from Clarke Creek. We are currently awaiting the outcome of this application, but the federal government's $100 million mobile black spots funding program itself offers regional Australia the chance to have access to the same mobile services that city people take for granted. Communities form the heart of rural and regional Australia, and our Liberal-National government continues to budget and approve funding for many important community projects. These include $300,000 for Rockhampton Meals on Wheels to help build a new kitchen, a vital service to our senior citizens; over $322,000 towards $1 million of refurbishment of St Anne's Catholic Primary School in Sarina; and over $700,000 towards new facilities at St Joseph's Catholic Primary School, North Rockhampton, which forms part of a $1.5 million building project. Such projects boost education and support local jobs. Our Liberal-National government is also budgeting for smaller grants that are vitally important to smaller groups in our community—such as $5,000 to allow the Yeppoon Surf Life Saving Club to buy new training and safety equipment, and over $1,300 to help the men's shed at Sarina undertake first aid training. Both of these groups are fantastic, and I have been fortunate enough to visit them. Near Rockhampton we are also providing $61,000 to the Fitzroy Basin Association to revegetate endangered vine thickets near Mount Etna, under our $20 million trees program. This is one of many examples of our conservation projects. At the end of the day, all of these things could only be funded when there is responsible fiscal management, and that is what we are trying to achieve through the bills we are discussing today. Today's bills on the budget mean a lot to all Australians. We inherited a budget black hole thanks to Labor, and we must get it back on track so that we can provide even more benefits to regional Australia in the future. 12:23 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter It is fortuitous that I be here to follow the member for Capricornia and to deal with some of the propositions that she has put forward. I say this very clearly to the Nationals and members of the Liberal Party who represent rural and regional seats: it takes more in our electorates than rebadging Labor's spending priorities and spending them as your own. You never hear government members talk about all the money that was flowing to rural and regional Australia, which now does not flow because of the early decisions of the coalition government. Regional Development Australia funding is the perfect example. I can cite the case in my own electorate of $7 million that should have gone to the refurbishment of the Maitland mall as an example. That was set in stone by the former Labor government. It went through a cabinet process—I was part of that process—and it was determined on the basis of recommendations of the department. Yet it was not honoured by the incoming Abbott government. Every time Minister Truss approaches the despatch box during question time, much to the ire of the member for Grayndler, the former minister for transport, he cites projects the Nationals or the coalition is rolling out in rural and regional Australia, in terms of roads in particular. These are projects Minister Truss takes credit for, but which were selected, determined and funded by the former, Labor government. The truth is that this coalition government has not spent one additional cent on any of those projects—not one cent which was not already planned to be spent by the former, Labor government, and fully budgeted for by the former, Labor government. So let us not hear the rebadging. Please let us hear the coalition plan for rural and regional Australia. Where is their vision for rural and regional Australia? Where is their strategy to ensure that rural and regional Australia receives a fair amount of attention as compared to our cities when it comes to the priorities of this government? Let's talk about some of the more bizarre decisions that have been made recently by this coalition government, which run contrary to the interests of rural and regional Australia. Let's go through all those budget measures. There have been cuts in education, cuts in health and GP co-payments, which seem to have gone away for the moment, but we will see where that goes. I suspect there is another hit coming on patients, which will only be rebranded and will come in a different form. There have been fuel increases on motorists in rural and regional Australia. All these budget measures impact adversely and disproportionately on people living in rural and regional Australia, including those who live in my electorate of Hunter. Let's take the recent decision or proposals to lower the thresholds of the Foreign Investment Review Board. This is populist politics at its worst. We know that there is concern—particularly in rural and regional Australia—about the growing levels of foreign investment in our agricultural land and our agricultural investment. The secret to this is to build public confidence in foreign investment, because we know from the Greener pastures report—thanks to one of the other side's own members—that by 2050 we will need about $500 billion in agriculture investment to fully capitalise on the opportunities presented by what I call the dining boom. I am talking of the ever-increasing demand for high-quality, clean, green food in Asia. Let's say, that the Greener pastures report was not all that robust. Let's accept, for a moment, that it will not be $500 billion but it will be $250 billion by 2050. It is axiomatic that, as a small island continent with 23 million people with a limited savings capacity, that most of those funds will, by necessity, come from foreign sources, as has always been the case in Australia. Our country is built on foreign capital, effectively—iconic projects like the Sydney Harbour Bridge being the perfect example. So we should be welcoming of foreign investment in agriculture and in agricultural business. We desperately need that foreign capital. And we need to put that 'we are open for business' sign out. Otherwise—thanks to the member for Hume, was it?—we will have a shortfall; we will not be in a position to capitalise on those opportunities in Asia. Instead of building public confidence in foreign investment, as we first proposed to do with a register—which would allow people everywhere to see who was investing in what and where, and how much they were investing, so that people could have confidence in the system—those opposite went out and fiddled with the thresholds. They have taken the thresholds from a quarter of a million dollars to $15 million, in the case of agricultural land. We still do not know what the agribusiness threshold will be, because they have not guesstimated that yet. They have not been able to agree on that. I suspect coalition members are still arguing. The dries in the cabinet want one figure and the more progressive, I will call them—I think they would like that term—want another figure. So they make the announcement but say: 'Don't worry; we will work out the figure for agribusiness somewhere in the future.' Meanwhile, investors in Asia and elsewhere are saying: 'What the?' They do not know what the rules are. And, by the way, there is no legislation. There is no law. It will be retrospective, though, I am told, when the law comes into this place. But, in the meantime, investors right around the world—in a world where competition for global capital is intense—do not know what the rules are in Australia. So guess what? They are looking at South Africa; they are looking at South America; they are looking at Australia. They all have great potential to provide yields well beyond what an investor might get domestically in, say, China. They are looking at the three opportunities and they are going: 'Australia—eh-eh.' Mr Husic 91219 The hicks are in control. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 'Eh-eh. Australia is no good to me—I don't know what the rules are. The thresholds are ridiculous.' They are saying: 'We've had a look. The government hasn't provided any additional resources to Treasury to deal with this flood of applications Treasury is now going to receive as a result of these threshold reductions, so it is just all too hard. We will go to South America instead.' I challenge the member for Hume, Angus Taylor, to come in here today on this appropriation debate and tell us what he thinks of the new foreign investment thresholds, as much as we understand them at this stage. He was the co-author of that report that rang the alarm bell which said: 'We must be inviting foreign capital if we are to properly grow our agriculture businesses to fully capitalise on the dining boom and to allow agriculture to drive wealth in this country in the future.' I suspect the member for Hume will not come in, because he absolutely agrees with me. Those who understand the FIRB process know this: it is just a board. The FIRB is a board designed to build some public confidence in the system, to allow people to understand that it is not just the Treasury dealing with these matters. There is a board of non-salaried people from all walks of life—and I pay tribute to all of them, including Mr Secker, a former member of this place—that is designed to give people some confidence that other people from the community with some expertise have a role to play. But we all know how these boards work. Once a month they get a list of proposals. Treasury says: 'We've got 20 proposals to put before you.' More often than not—in fact, almost all the time—they say: 'We recommend they all be approved.' It is like going to a council meeting and getting your agenda. Some of us in this place will be familiar with that process. The board rarely challenges Treasury. In any case, well before the board gets its papers, if there is any controversial proposal in there it is already in the newspapers and the Treasurer is already all over it. Ultimately it is the Treasurer who determines these matters if there is any controversy around them whatsoever. So what is the threshold about? If the Treasurer is concerned about a proposal and if a proposal has sparked concern in Treasury, it does not matter whether it is $1 million dollars or $250 million—the Treasury is on to it, the Treasurer is on to it and the matter will be dealt with appropriately. Hopefully, it will be handled by the Treasurer in a way that maintains and further builds confidence in the system. So the threshold is a stunt. I would not care if it were just a stunt designed to bolster the stocks of a struggling National Party in particular, but it is going to do so much harm. Mr McCormack 219646 We are in government! Where are you blokes? Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I am going to take the interjection from the parliamentary secretary opposite. He says: 'We are in government!' This is the point: there is another mob in government, too—it is called the Baird government. It is another coalition government, and guess what? They are up for election on 28 March. That is why at the moment you are seeing extraordinary backdowns in all ranges of public policy. Minister Hunt goes to the minister for agriculture's electorate last Friday and announces he is stopping the clock on the Shenhua coalmining development, after all this time. I invite the minister for agriculture to come in here right now and debate me on these issues. Minister—are you listening, Minister? Come in! Come on down! Let's have a debate on the Shenhua mine. Let's have a debate on foreign investment in agriculture in this country. Minister Hunt went to the minister's electorate— Mr McCormack interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 How much money were you putting on that? Mr McCormack 219646 I will back him every time over you! Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Minister Hunt accompanied Minister Joyce to his own electorate and said, after all these months, if not years, of debate on the Shenhua mine, three weeks from the state election: 'We're stopping the clock!' They stopped the clock all right—until 29 March. That is when they have stopped the clock until—29 March. So I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's intervention. At the moment we are seeing extraordinary admissions of fault and backdowns and stunts from this government for one primary purpose—to save Mike Baird in New South Wales. And we know that Mike Baird—as he knows—that, despite his very significant margin in the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales, is in all sorts of trouble. He is in all sorts of trouble in all sorts of places. None the least—and members need to listen carefully, because they will not believe what I am about to say—not the least in Upper Hunter.   Guess what the relationship is between Upper Hunter and the Minister for Agriculture? They share the area. Mr McCormack interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 The Minister for Agriculture is very, very nervous about where Upper Hunter is leading. The parliamentary secretary says, 'Oh, Michael Johnsen will win.' He, for the benefit of those listening, is the National Party candidate. He is also the bloke that has three times run against me and three times lost. As a reward, he is being given a safe state seat, where my very good friend George Souris is retiring. But—guess what, Mr Deputy Speaker—it did not quite turn out that way. It appears that Upper Hunter is not so safe after all. That is why they are spending so much money. That is why they are sending their young guns in to campaign. And that is why Minister Hunt was in Barnaby Joyce's electorate and the electorate of Upper Hunter last week: they are worried. The Labor Party has an excellent candidate by the name of Martin Rush. He is the Mayor of Muswellbrook and has been since, I think, 2008. He is a champion guy doing good things in his local community. The National Party are on the run, just like they are on the run right around this country. They are on the run for two reasons. Country Caucus has got them on the run: the Labor Party is putting forward good policies in rural and regional Australia and holding them to account for the way they have walked away from what they would describe as their natural constituencies. And they are on the run due to their own failings and incompetencies. This is a dysfunctional government. It is having an effect most in rural and regional Australia. It is catching up with the National Party, and I can promise them one thing: we are going to hunt them all the way to the next federal election. 12:38 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon What a load of nonsense. What a load of hot air we have just heard from the member for Hunter. I was sitting here wondering why he would be going on about things completely irrelevant to the debate on the appropriations bills before us here today, and I began to realise that I know why. We today have released the Intergenerationalreport. It is funny; back in 2010, the Labor Party released the 2010 Intergenerational report, and Wayne Swan had this to say about it on radio: The first thing we need to do is to make sure we invest in the drivers of productivity so we can grow our economy faster and have the revenue that comes with that to support an ageing population, and also … we need to have Budget discipline. He then proceeded to deliver a deficit of $47.5 billion. So the member for Hunter has come in here and talked about everything else other than appropriations because the Labor Party had no record in government to be able to discuss this. That is why we heard that diatribe. I say to the member for Hunter: if you want to hunt us down in the lead-up to the next election on regional and rural issues, you had better come up with some policies because you have no track record to speak of when it comes to delivering for regional and rural Australia—no track record at all. As a matter of fact, the only record you have is one of debacle. I could spend my 15 minutes talking about how unfit Labor is to govern, especially for regional and rural Australia, but I do not want to do that. I actually want to talk about what the coalition government is doing for my electorate and then for the nation. I want to start by talking about what the government has been able to do through its fiscal management to deliver for the electorate of Wannon. In the 2013 election campaign, I made some significant commitments to the electorate of Wannon. Through our first budget, those commitments are being delivered upon. I want to just detail a few of those here today. We have $25 million for the Great Ocean Road upgrade. I know that the member for Corangamite—the Great Ocean Road runs through her electorate as well—has also been a beneficiary of this. That $25 million is already being rolled out to improve that road. We have the integrated cancer care centre for south-west Victoria. Ten million dollars was given by the federal government to combine with $15 million from the state government and $5 million, in a remarkable fundraising effort, from the local community to build this $30 million integrated cancer care centre. Planning for that is underway, and the first sod should be turned this year. We have the Cobden Technical School and trade training centre, with $4.4 million delivered. That is already beginning. The foundations are being laid for that new trade training centre, which will be spread around Cobden Technical School, Camperdown College, Derrinallum P-12 College, the Hampden Specialist School and the Terang College campus. We have the Condah-Hotspur road, with $2.5 million. That money is already available to the Glenelg Shire Council to deliver on improving that bit of road. We will then reduce the freight task, especially when it comes to delivering timber to one of our most important mills and then on to the Port of Portland. We have the Maryborough Education Centre trade training centre, another $1 million commitment to go into Maryborough to make sure our young people get the necessary skills they need to go on and be job ready. We have $125,000 for the Melville Oval lights. I must say that I was incredibly privileged to be at Melville Oval last week with the new president of the footy club, Johnny Pepper, a terrific fellow, to announce that the lights should be built and be ready by the middle of the year. There are two fantastic outcomes from that investment. The first is that our footballers and netballers will be able to train at night in safety. The lights there were in such poor condition that there were serious worries about OH&S issues in the conditions for them training at night, especially in the winter. So it will be much safer for them to train. But also we will now be able to have special events under lights, whether it be on Anzac Day or finals played on a Friday night under lights, which will just be terrific for the local community. We have CCTV cameras which are going into Maryborough in the main street. That is a $100,000 commitment to help keep that community safe and to fight crime in a very effective way. We have some significant environmental initiatives that we are rolling out as well. We have the Whale Trail going into Portland, with $25,000 committed by the Minister for the Environment—a great initiative. We will have the National Whale Trail right up the eastern seaboard of Australia. Portland was one of the first sights to be named to be part of the National Whale Trail. We also have some great Green Army initiatives being rolled out. We have one in Corangamite shire involving a community trail and reserve, which will be upgraded. We have the Heytesbury District Landcare Network with their biofund application and we have the Basalt to Bay Landcare Network. I have already been down to see some of the outstanding work that Basalt to Bay have been doing with their Green Army. Not only have they been improving some wonderful national park areas; they have also discovered two insects, which up until now no-one knew existed in south-west Victoria. There have been some significant findings as part of the Green Army project that Basalt to Bay have been overseeing. And we have a Green Army project for the Goldfields Employment and Learning Centre, which has been delivered and I am looking forward to seeing it implemented in the coming months. We have very good fiscal management which is leading to very good outcomes on the ground in my electorate of Wannon. I have mentioned a couple of road funding initiatives, but there are a couple of other significant ones which I want to highlight as well. We have the Western Highway duplication, which will involve $505 million in total duplicating the Western Highway from Ballarat through to Stawell, with $404 million of that being committed by the federal government. Last week, I was very privileged to be there for the opening of a brand new section of 23 kilometres of duplicated road on the Western Highway near Beaufort. It was wonderful to be there with the community for the opening because we had local school kids and mums and dads there. They understand the importance of proper road infrastructure for country areas and what it means not only for safety but also for increasing productivity. We have also seen a significant increase in the Roads to Recovery funding. I know all regional and rural members in this place understand the importance of Roads to Recovery funding. I have been privileged to announce that we have just had an additional $55.9 million for my electorate, which will be distributed around local shires. I know that that will be welcome because keeping and maintaining the road networks in regional and rural areas is one of our biggest challenges. I say this to the member for Hunter: in your deliberations of putting policies together for the next election, understand how much you hurt our road networks last time you were in government. You did not care about regional and rural Australia, especially about delivering road funding for them. If you are going to be serious, make sure that your policy delivers when it comes to road infrastructure for regional and rural areas. The coalition are doing that and we are doing that significantly. Roads to Recovery funding next financial year will double. That is how important the coalition recognise that road funding is for our nation. We will see the Roads to Recovery funding double next financial year. We have also seen the Bridges Renewal Program implemented. This is a new initiative of the coalition. Already, $2.23 million has been allocated to my electorate to restore two bridges that needed repair. One of those, the Castle Cary Road bridge, has been waiting for an investment like this for a very long time. It is fantastic to see $2.23 million already delivered to my electorate as part of this Bridges Renewal Program. We are delivering when it comes to road funding. There is $1 million for the Princes Highway for Dartmoor rest areas and also $1 million for upgrades to the Terang intersection. There are another two important initiatives to help with the Princes Highway—$1 million near Dartmoor, $1 million for a key intersection in Terang. The coalition government are delivering when it comes to road funding across Australia and across the electorate of Wannon. Nothing makes me prouder than delivering road funding into my electorate. The importance of it can never, ever be underestimated. The coalition also have a vision for regional and rural Australia, and the nation, which goes beyond individual electorates. While I am here, I would like to take the time to once again commend the Minister for Trade for what he has delivered for our areas—a trifecta of free trade agreements, the legacy of which will deliver for this nation for years to come. Importantly, it will deliver for regional and rural areas because agriculture and agricultural access has been one of the hardest parts of trying to liberalist markets globally. It will also deliver for the growth areas in our economy, in particular the services sector. We have put in place three, almost, nation-changing free trade agreements. I look forward, especially when it comes to the China FAT, for the member for Hunter saying at the dispatch, loud and clear, his side's support for these free trade agreements. They have been a little silent on the China FAT. If they were serious about delivering for regional and rural Australia, they would know that that agreement, especially when it comes to the dairy sector, is vitally important. They seem to be a little quiet in that area and I am not quite sure what is going on behind the scenes. But I do look forward to the member for Hunter coming out as their agricultural spokesperson and saying, 'We've got to deliver on this because it is so important for regional and rural Australia.' We have also delivered when it comes to fixing the budget. As we have seen through the Intergenerational report, we have started to seriously address Labor's mess. Everyone knows, particularly those in regional and rural areas, that, ultimately, whether you are a family or a business, you have to live within your means. This is what the government has started to do. It has started to address the financial mess which it has been left with. It will mean that in future years we will have the capability to continually invest in road funding, in health, in education and in the types of programs that will lead to young people being able to have the pathways to employment. We will have the capacity to deliver those much-needed services into communities, which are vital for those who are disabled or who are elderly. We will deliver where government is needed to step in and pave the way to make sure that everyone in this country receives the standard of living that they deserve and that we enjoy today. If we do not get our budget repair done then it will not happen. We recognise this. We have already acted in the first 16-17 months of government. And, as we will see in the lead-up to the next budget, we will continue to create the pathway to put the nation on a stable financial footing. I am proud to be able to speak on this bill today because this government is not only delivering for the electorate of Wannon in significant ways, with significant initiatives; it is also delivering for the nation. It is setting the nation back on the right track, on the right course, to make sure that we will continue to grow in the right way—the way that benefits every single community across Australia. 12:53 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley This debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 and related bills is a white flag that has been hoisted up on a retreat from idiocy. Those opposite have basically presided over a fool's adventure of a budget. And now we are seeing them move away from it as fast as they possibly can, because so much of that budget was basically driven by a pack mentality. These were ideological mongrels who made decisions about the future of the nation not on practical, commonsensical propositions but rather on pursuing advice. We have heard all sorts of things about whether or not this budget was framed based on an ACCI note that was drawn up by the member for Eden-Monaro, who was supposedly suggesting all sorts of cuts and other things that should be done, and these guys opposite went through it and decided that they would frame the budget in that way. Let us look at some of those propositions: a GP tax. We were told that medical costs were unsustainable and that something needed to be done, so they put forward a GP tax. These are the people who rallied against the carbon price as a price signal, and now they wanted to put a price signal on families when it came to medical costs—medical costs that, when compared to other parts of the world, the PBO said, were sustainable. There was no emergency in medical costs. What were they planning to do? At the same time as they were cutting research within universities—and we have today Universities Australia writing an open letter to the Prime Minister saying that the national public research infrastructure is preparing for shut down as a result of budget decisions contained in this debate—they said that they would provide this GP tax that would then be funnelled into some sort of magical research fund. This would fund medical research as they are cutting, as they are hacking, at research in other areas. This was all about short-term gain for long-term pain, because the people who did not turn up to doctors would eventually end up in the emergency departments of our hospital system, which would at the same time be facing massive cuts as a result of what was contained in this budget—$80 billion worth of cuts to hospitals and schools. And that is the GP tax. Let us talk about education: enter the education minister, who was preparing to preside over billions of dollars' worth of cuts to higher education. The government would do a double whammy. They would cut the amount of funding provided to universities and, at the same time, say, 'Feel free to charge what you want for degrees.' The effect of that for members of parliament who represent the region of Western Sydney, like the member for McMahon here at the table, me and my other colleagues, is that we would see the people that we represent—and they are young—denied the opportunity to be able to build their talent— Mr Ruddock interjecting— Mr Bowen DZS Phil is claiming Western Sydney. Mr HUSIC 91219 I apologise. The Father of the House also represents Western Sydney, but he would have been part of a government that was happy to see the children of low- and middle-income earners denied the opportunity to go to university. We would then only have the well-heeled who would have the chance to further their skills. This is outrageous! Mr Simpkins interjecting— Mr HUSIC 91219 Why don't you direct your anger to your party room? Mr Bowen DZS He has! Mr HUSIC 91219 You tried once but you did not do the job properly—just like this government can't do the job properly. Look at the decisions. They run counter to each other. You have the education minister who wants to deny university to low- and middle-income people and then you have the Foreign Minister lauding the New Colombo Plan—on paper a great idea. But when the people going to university are not able to go to university anymore and it is only the well-heeled who are able to go to university, what is the education minister doing? The education minister is turning the Foreign Minister's Colombo Plan into something that is equivalent to a kon tiki tour for the young rich. You will not have low- and middle-income earners— Mr Simpkins interjecting— Mr HUSIC 91219 You should settle down, member for Cowan. You are going to blow a gasket, my friend. Why don't you look at the member for Bennelong? He is zen like sitting next there to you, as you are exploding. You should be upset about what your government is doing to this country. That is what you should be upset about Mr Simpkins interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWO Order, member for Cowan! Mr HUSIC 91219 Thanks for the help, deputy chair. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWO Carry on. Mr HUSIC 91219 Look at employment. They wanted to do a six-month delay with young people being able to access Newstart. This even shocked corporate Australia. Corporate Australia was already worried about the impact of higher education reform. They said it was unsustainable, that there was a problem in delaying the extension of Newstart payments to young people—people under 30—for six months. Then the government had this great idea of 40 job applications. You would have to submit 40 job applications to businesses if you were on unemployment benefits. This was seen as a massive burden on business. Even corporate Australia had problems with all these changes that were being put forward. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate interrupted. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 38 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Intergenerational Report: 2015 38 13:00 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney by leave—Today, the government has released the 2015 Intergenerational report. The Intergenerational report is the social compact between the generations—children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents and each other. It projects what the Australian population, economy and budget could look like in 40 years, and it shows that Australia's best years are ahead of us. It provides us with information we need to prepare for the future and ensures we are well placed to address the demographic changes that Australia faces. It helps us identify where the future opportunities will be. Australians have always looked forward. We are a generous, compassionate people and always willing to take on full responsibility for the future of our families, and our communities. Australia has witnessed amazing change over the last 40 years, and we will witness a transformation based on ideas and opportunities over the next 40 years. Average incomes have doubled in real terms over the last 40 years and this increased wealth has been broadly shared across the community. Today, Australians produce twice as much in goods and services for every hour they work compared with 40 years ago. Australians are living longer and we have one of the longest life expectancies in the world. Currently Australia ranks equal first for life expectancy with Iceland in terms of male life. Australian women have the fifth longest life expectancy after Japan, Spain, France and Italy. In 1975, there were just 122 Australian centenarians. Today there are 4,000. And in 40 years time there will be 40,000 people aged over 100. It should be celebrated that Australians are living longer and in better health. We are on the verge of an ageing population boom, not an ageing bust. This boom will bring many opportunities for Australians that we would never have considered before, and we need to start positioning ourselves now. The future is what we make it today. This government is preparing and planning for the years ahead. As I said, the Australian population, like so many around the world, is enjoying a longer life. A boy born today will on average live to over 91 years of age, and slightly longer to 93 years if you are a girl. A child born mid-century is likely to live close to 100. Indeed, as the front page of Time magazine highlighted last month, a child born today could live beyond 140 years of age. Positive actions have increased life expectancies of Australians. From the 1970s we saw life expectancies increase because we introduced seatbelt laws, and laws about drink driving. We developed treatments for heart disease and reduced the prevalence of smoking. Our longer lives and demographic shifts mean there will be fewer people of traditional working age as a proportion of the population. For every person aged 65 and over, there are currently around four people aged between 15 and 64. In 40 years time, that number will halve. Yes, our population will grow over the next 40 years, and migration will continue to play a very important role in that equation. But the IGR projects that population growth could be slightly lower in the next 40 years. So what does that mean for Australia? The change in demographic structure will have important implications for the tax base and how future generations will fund the services the community needs and expects. It also has important implications for the expected growth in the economy, and therefore our household incomes. So let me explain. We can think about our economy's growth being driven by three main factors—the 'three Ps' as they are known. The growth in population, the participation in the labour force and the productivity of workers. Population growth is unlikely to contribute to economic growth as much over the next 40 years, as it has been in previous days. The focus then turns to workforce participation and productivity. Australia's future growth and prosperity relies on having a sufficient workforce to fill the jobs of tomorrow. We see in the Intergenerational report that the workforce participation rate will fall by around two percentage points, from nearly 65 per cent today to just over 62 per cent mid-century. That said, there are clear opportunities to increase workforce participation by supporting Australians to get and keep jobs. These opportunities include continuing to support increased workforce participation by women, by youth, for people with a disability, and by embracing the potential of older Australians. The workforce participation rate of people 65 years and over is expected to increase from 13 per cent today, to 17.3 per cent mid-century. This is our new grey army. The participation of older workers represents a significant opportunity over coming years to benefit from the wisdom and experience of older Australians. But there is more we can do to embrace this! If more Australians want to work beyond 65, they should have every opportunity to do so. But it is their choice. Greater female participation in work represents huge benefits to Australia. By way of example, if Australia lifted its female participation rate to be the equal of say Canada, we could potentially see a $25 billion increase in the size of our economy. The final contributor to growth that the IGR highlights is productivity. Productivity is about getting more bang for each hour we work. Since the early 1970s we have doubled our output for every hour we have worked. Through significant reforms over the last 30 years, and the adoption of innovative and new technologies, productivity growth has been robust, averaging 1.5 per cent per annum over that period. The big question going forward is: what will be the average rate of productivity growth for the next 30 or 40 years? The Intergenerational report assumes productivity growth will continue at 1½ per cent per annum for the next 40 years. It is a fair assumption, but it is a big ask. Achieving this rate of growth will require the reform agenda to continue—reforms that make government more efficient, that make our markets more efficient and give every opportunity to Australians to work smarter, not harder. It will also require Australian businesses to be prepared to harness the opportunities when they arise, be it technological change or the opening of new markets. Taking all the assumptions behind population, participation and productivity means that over the next 40 years the Australian economy is projected grow at 2.8 per cent per annum, slightly less than the 3.1 per cent per annum we saw over the past 40 years—but it is still a level of growth that would see our prosperity rise significantly. Let me put this into context. Australia is in the midst of one of the largest economic expansions in the history of our nation. Australia is in its 24th year of continuous economic growth—almost near the record efforts of the Netherlands, which had 26 years of uninterrupted growth until 2008. The IGR projects another 40 years of average economic growth, consistent with the methodology used in previous IGRs. Without doubt, this is a challenge. Sixty-five years of continuous economic growth—unprecedented. But we do not shy from the challenge. We welcome it. We embrace it. To achieve this level of growth going forward, we must consider what changes will deliver that prosperity. The Intergenerational report is a tool to start the conversation. It is an information kit that will equip everybody to have a dialogue based on facts. This government is focussed on working with the Australian people to build a stronger Australia. This government will continue to invest in the key drivers of economic growth. That is why we recognise the importance of small business and how they employ a significant part of the workforce. This government recognises the importance of families and the opportunities for women to return to work. This government recognises the importance of infrastructure in creating jobs, reducing congestion and improving productivity. We need to ensure that we can pay for today, and we also need to ensure Australians will be able to afford our nation's future. We are currently living beyond our means. The Australian government is spending over $100 million every day more than it collects in revenue. Australia is borrowing $100 million every day just to pay for this shortfall, just to pay the daily bills. That is not where we want to be and it is not where we can afford to be. Ongoing deficits and rising debt are not sustainable. We need to be better placed to respond to the potential for future economic downturns and pressures on the budget as we live longer. If we made no changes to policies left in place by the former government, the deficit would have been on a path to reach, in today's dollars, $533 billion. Net debt would have been almost $5.6 trillion in today's dollars. However, the IGR shows that this government has already made considerable progress to repair the budget. With the measures already legislated, the projected budget deficit and net debt levels in 2055 have been halved. Continuing to work at keeping spending under control will ensure we can deliver the services the community needs and expects. It also improves our capacity to respond to the challenges and opportunities outlined in this report. The policies proposed by the government—or alternatives of a similar value—would get us back to living within our means and net debt paid off by 2032. I say emphatically: we are willing to work cooperatively with all to put the budget on a sustainable footing. We are at a critical juncture in our history. The Intergenerational report is an incredibly important document to start a serious conversation about the challenges and opportunities ahead for Australia. We should welcome the fact we are all living longer. We also need to ensure that we take the steps now to ensure our prosperity for generations to come, and that we leave nobody in Australia behind. We must take responsibility for how we plan for own future and how we leave things for the next generation and those that follow. This is the social compact between the generations. The 2015 IGR shows that we can have a positive and more prosperous future if we start planning for tomorrow today. This is a conversation the nation wants to have and we are ready for it. I present a copy of the 2015 Intergenerational report—Australia in 2055 and a copy of my ministerial statement. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for McMahon to speak for 12 minutes. Leave granted. 13:13 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Bowen speaking for a period not exceeding 12 minutes. Question agreed to. 13:13 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The Intergenerational report is an opportunity for a government to outline a vision for the nation, to talk to the nation about the challenges and opportunities for the long term, to rise above day-to-day politics, to rise above point-scoring and to rise above sledging the previous administrations, but the Treasurer and the government have shown themselves incapable of doing that. The Intergenerational reportis not meant to be a belated, half-hearted attempt to sell an unfair budget. The Intergenerational report is not meant to be an opportunity to sledge previous administrations. The Intergenerational report is meant to be about the future. This Intergenerational report has eight pages on the future and 80 pages on the past. This Intergenerational report has been politicised like no other. The member for North Sydney is the third Treasurer to bring down an Intergenerational report and he is the first to politicise it in such a blatant manner. The Intergenerational report, as the Treasurer himself today said, is a document of the Treasurer. It is not an independent analysis of the Treasury, but a document of the Treasurer. But this Treasurer is the first to so blatantly politicise it. Even as the government attempts to politicise this document, they have not done so honestly or competently. On 45 occasions this document talks about previous policies. When you look closely at these previous policies, they are the previous policies of the Treasurer. They are the policies as outlined in his mid-year economic statement. They are the policies as outlined in the document which he owns. They are policies like giving $9 billion to the Reserve Bank, an increase in spending by $14 billion. They are his policies; previous government policies. They are the policies that government. As they attempt to rewrite history, they do not even do so competently or honestly. They talk about previous policies. Yes, they are policies they once had—policies never embraced by this side—like giving $9 billion to the Reserve Bank. If we are going to have a conversation about the future, let us do so honestly and let us have a competent and clear exposition of the facts. There are other ways that this document is fundamentally flawed. I asked the Treasurer yesterday in the House whether the document would reflect his government's policy of restoring the private health insurance rebate in full. Members will recall that the previous Labor government means tested the private health insurance rebate to make it fairer and more sustainable. That was a very important fiscal reform, not a small one. It saved $25 billion over 10 years or $100 billion over 40 years. We did it against the opposition of the Liberal and National parties, because apparently the age of entitlement is not over for all. But it was done. The now Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, and the then shadow Treasurer promised to restore it. They did not say that they would do it immediately, in fairness. They said they would restore it when they could. That was within the decade, as the budget returned to surplus. The Treasurer today is predicting a return to surplus in 2028 in his own document. Does the Intergenerational report assumed that the private health insurance rebate is restored in full? There is not a word. It is a fundamentally dishonest projection of government policy. Either the Treasurer should walk away from his policy and admit he got it wrong, admit that the private health insurance rebate should be means tested and admit they will never restore it or the document should reflect government policy. It has neither of those things; that is the truth. If the Treasurer and the government are going to engage in a discussion about the future, we are in it. But we will do so honestly and we will do so based on the facts. We will not do so based on false protections, as claimed in this document. There is another interesting projection in here which honourable members will be extremely interested in. It relates the age pension. This government is changing the indexation of the age pension. This government is saying that CPI is fair. This government says that pensioners should not have their pension linked to their average weekly earnings. It is a fundamentally different approach to this side of the House. When we were in office, we made the indexation fairer. We introduced more ways the pension could be increased, not less. We said that pensioners deserve a fair pension, linked to the pension, the CPI or a basket of goods which reflected what pensioners actually buy. That is not good enough this government. They said, 'No, no. Pensioners don't deserve that.' They attempted to change the policy. Today, we have an acknowledgement for first time that this is not fair, because the government says that when they return to surplus they project that they will return the pension to being linked to average weekly earnings. So poor people will have to be on the pension for the next 12 years. The leaners—apparently, according to the Treasurer—have to put up with an unfair indexation measure, but apparently into the future that will be changed. Here we have assumptions and forecasts made not by the Treasury, not by the Department of Finance, not by the Parliamentary Budget Office but by the member for North Sydney. This is his political document. This is his half-hearted and belated attempt to sell what he has been incapable of selling up until now for the next 10 months: his budget. That is why his use the Intergenerational report. It is an abuse of what the Intergenerational report should be used for. We know that this government has one way of dealing with demographic change. There is demographic change in Australia—of course there is. Governments need to deal with it. They have one way: making you work longer and then giving you less when you eventually are allowed to retire. This Treasurer, in his grace, allows you to retire after you have worked longer than any other worker in the developed world! The Treasurer says to carpenters, bricklayers, policeman, nurses and soldiers, 'I'm going to make you work until you are 70.' Mr Frydenberg FKL It is the grey army. Mr BOWEN DZS He says, 'I am going to put the grey army out there, laying the bricks and laying the carpets when they have worked hard their whole lives.' The member for Kooyong says, 'No, no. You are going to work until you are 70, longer than any other developed country in the world, and then we are going to give you less of the age pension when you retire.' There is a better way than that. You can invest in the future. You can invest in people's own retirement incomes through superannuation. Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Assistant Treasurer will desist. Mr BOWEN DZS You can build on that great Labor reform of superannuation. You can take the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent and let people save for their own retirements with the help of the government. You can help low-income earners save for their retirement by giving them a low-income earners superannuation contribution, which is something this government has taken away. You can actually say to older people, 'We will continue to ensure that you are paid superannuation.' That is something the previous Labor government did and the Liberal and National parties voted against it. They are in no position to lecture anybody. At the time, the Liberal and National parties voted against the policy to let a superannuation guarantee compulsory be paid people over 70. It was an outrageous decision by the Liberal and National parties, passed in this House with the support of the then members for Lyons and New England. Those changes—the increase in the superannuation guarantee and allowing low-income earners the benefit of a contribution from the tax system, which was some support as people under $37,000 save for their retirement—would have added $500 billion to the savings of the Australian people by 2037. More importantly, we know that those measures would have reduced the number of people on the full age pension by half by 2050. That is how you make the age pension more sustainable. You work with people. You assist low-income earners to save for their own retirement. You say to lower income earners—the carpenters, the plumbers, the cleaners—that they actually deserve a tax concession on their superannuation. If it is good enough for high-income earners and millionaires, it is good enough for cleaners and others in this building, and right across the country, to get a bit of assistance in saving for their retirement—but not according to this government, not according to the member for North Sydney, not according to the member for Kooyong, and not according to the Prime Minister. They say, no, the only way is to cut. We are going to make you work longer, and we are going to give you less when you are eventually allowed to retire. Well, there is a better way. I welcome the fact that the Treasurer, in his remarks a few moments ago, for the first time recognised there are alternatives. You bet there are. There are a heap of alternatives, and you are going to see them. There are better ways of saving for the future. There are better ways of dealing with demographic change. It is not all about making people work harder and longer. It is not all about taking things away from people. It is about helping people save for their own retirement, giving them a dignified retirement and giving them a chance to live in retirement without reliance on the full age pension. It is about helping people to use the superannuation system to build on our strengths, to build on the strength of that great Australian financial system and our great financial services providers, who know how to invest for the future and how to maximise people's retirement incomes. That should be available to every working Australian and not just those who can afford to get financial advice and those who get massive tax concessions from this government. It should be available to those who are able to work hard and save for themselves and provide for themselves—but they get zero support from this government. All they get are lectures about being leaners and not lifters. All they get are lectures about being takers and not makers. All they get told is that they are a drain on the public purse. How dare they expect an age pension. How dare they expect an age pension that actually increases with growth in Australian wages and the Australian economy. How dare they expect the Australian government to look after them. How could they expect such a thing. How could they expect to get any support from this government. Well, they cannot expect to get any support—not from the member for North Sydney, who is so out of touch with the aspirations of ordinary Australian people, nor from the member for Kooyong, who lectures them and says they do not deserve a tax concession if they are low- and middle-income earners—and who takes it away from them—and whose main focus is providing more tax concessions to people on high incomes and less to people on low incomes. It says it all about the priorities of this government, which has brought down a flawed document in an attempt to sell their own unfair and flawed budget—a flawed sales job that is about to be supplemented by taxpayers' funds on an advertising campaign—a document brought down a month after it should have been, in breach of the law, in breach of the Charter of Budget Honesty Act. The Treasurer of Australia is in breach of a law he is meant to be administering. He says to the Australian people: 'I will enforce the law.' Well, how about you start complying with it. How about you actually start by complying with your own law instead of beating your chest about enforcing the law on others. You can start by complying with it, and you can start with a bit of honesty. We are not seeing any in this document. (Time expired) BILLS 42 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2014-2015, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015 42

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2014-2015

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015

Second Reading 42 13:26 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Before the statements I was indicating that this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 and the cognate bills was a retreat from idiocy as the government was moving away from a series of insane budget decisions and insane budget measures that were hurting ordinary Australians and was seeing a massive distortion in the way the government was working. Now we have seen retreat from one bad policy and another, not on policy grounds or on the basis that it was right, but to save the Prime Minister from his own party room, from the unpopularity with the public and the unpopularity he was experiencing in his own party room, and also as an attempt to try and save his good friend and surfing buddy New South Wales Premier Mike Baird and to make sure that he would not suffer the same fate that we saw in Victoria and Queensland. We do not need a mate of the Prime Minister in New South Wales. We need a defender of New South Wales against what we have seen from the Abbott government. When the Abbott government cut $80 billion in hospitals and schools, what did we have? We had some meek response from the New South Wales premier and no defence thereafter. We have not seen him try to stand up the New South Wales. What we are now seeing, as I said, is a retreat from idiocy, which we are experiencing right now, as they are ditching policies left, right and centre in an attempt to save the Prime Minister and in an attempt to save the New South Wales Premier. What did we have when Labor was in office? We had lower unemployment. We had higher growth. We had stronger business investment. We had inflation contained. Importantly, we saw that the Australian economy was saved from the worst set of economic circumstances in 75 years, and that happened under Labor's watch. We saw the coalition, prior to being elected, talk down the economy. We saw them promise all things to all people—and they retreated on some of the promises. They made the promises while in opposition and retreated from them while in opposition. For instance, they promised they would get to surplus. They promised that they would get to surplus within one year of being office and, while everyone was on holiday in January 2013, we saw the then shadow Treasurer ditch that promise. They did not even have to get into office to have the chance to ditch their promises. They were making them in opposition and breaking them in opposition—and not being able to follow through on that. They all were ditching their own promises. They said there was a budget emergency, and what did they do? MYEFO, December 2013. What did we see? We did not see their so-called budget repair. They handed $9 billion to the Reserve Bank in one hit. Of course the Reserve Bank did not say no. Who would say no to $9 billion! They took the $9 billion. And guess what happened? Recently—and I note the presence of the parliamentary secretary and then chair of the Economics Committee, the member for Higgins—the Reserve Bank governor told the meeting of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics that—guess what?—there would be a $1.2 billion dividend to the federal government. Wasn't that handy. So at the time we lost $9 billion in funds that could have been used properly just so they could get their $1.2 billion dividend. This is what we saw happen. They doubled the deficit. They removed superannuation payments for the wealthy. They also failed to act on multinational tax. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWO Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 43 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Higgins Medal 2014 43 13:30 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins To recognise and celebrate young and emerging leaders, I introduced the Higgins Medal award in 2011. The award is given to students who demonstrate leadership amongst their peers, exhibit a commitment to the ethos of the school, demonstrate excellence in attitude and achievement, are strong and consistent participants in school and community activity, and exhibit an awareness of others and their needs. It is my pleasure to acknowledge the Higgins Medal winners for 2014. They are: Tilly Campbell, Armadale Primary; Stella Corby, Camberwell South Primary; Freya Edselius, Christ Church Grammar; Joshua Coppelstone, De La Salle College; Lucy Green, Glen Iris Primary; Naomi Rubenstein, King David School; Annai Nally, Korowa Anglican Girls' School; Monique Tarrant, Lauriston Girls' School; Charlie Gough, Malvern Central School; Ana Mistric, Malvern Valley Primary; Eric Nyugen, Melbourne High; Oliver Lopez, Murrumbeena Primary; Jenni Babatsias, Periklis Stamatakos and Dimitrios Gotsis, Oakleigh Grammar; Emma Welford, Presentation College; Rachael Hamilton, Solway Primary; Nicholas Wilson and Alison Galbally, South Yarra Primary; Eliza Court, St Catherine's Girls' School; Emily Meehan, St Cecilia's Parish School; Samuel Penfold, St Kevin's College; Erin Kenworthy, Stonnington Primary; Rose Xu, Toorak Primary; and, last but not least, Olivia Rowley from Holy Eucharist Primary School, who is in the gallery today with her parents. I have the pleasure of welcoming her to Parliament House, this wonderful institution of our democracy. She is a great leader, and we wish her well with her future leadership ambitions. Family Violence 44 13:32 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo The statistics on family violence are heartbreaking. One in three women will experience family violence at some time in their lives. No-one can argue that family violence does not have a profound and damaging impact on its victims and on our community as a whole. I as a local MP find some of the hardest meetings to be in are with women who are trying to rebuild their lives after being victims of family violence. One woman who met with me about this issue brought in a series of bills, desperate for advice on how to pay them. I found out in our conversation that she had just moved to Bendigo from Ballarat, seeking to start a new life after recovering from being a victim of family violence. Another woman who came to speak with me said that she wanted to see greater investment and support for women who are rebuilding their lives but also for her children so that they can seek the support they need on an ongoing basis not just for 10 sessions but throughout their lives. We must do more. It is time for solutions. The fact is that too little has changed over the past few years and it has been too slow. That is why we need a national crisis summit on family violence. It will not be a government talkfest. It will be a chance for us as parliamentarians to listen to the people who have endured the faults of a failing system. It is time to hear the voices of the survivors. Clean Up Australia Day 44 13:33 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane I am delighted to update the House on the success of Clean Up Australia Day in the electorate of Brisbane. On 1 March 2015, I visited one of the many Clean Up Australia Day sites. The sponsors and volunteers were all there at the barbeque. I was happy to sponsor the barbecue at the Teneriffe Progress Association shed in the heart of the Brisbane electorate. I would like to specifically mention the excellent work being done by the Teneriffe Progress Association and the Brisbane Central Scout Group. The President of the Teneriffe Progress Association, Ben Pritchard, and Scout leader Adam Grey between them coordinated more than 60 volunteers to clean up Teneriffe. In 2015, Clean Up Australia Day marked 25 years of volunteer work to help reinvigorate local areas across Australia, with 6,073 clean-up sites registered nationally. Since founding Clean Up Australia back in 1989, self-confessed 'average Australian bloke' and founder Ian Kiernan has mobilised the whole nation around this main event—Clean Up Australia Day. From the start of 300,000 volunteers who turned out on the first Clean Up Australia Day in 1990, Ian Kiernan estimates that his clean-up army has collected more than 290,000 tonnes of rubbish through the commitment of more than 27 million volunteer-hours. In 2015 the electorate of Brisbane had some 20 registered sites, and I want to thank everyone involved. (Time expired) Indi Electorate: Mental Health 44 13:35 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi A significant event occurred recently in Indi at Barnawartha, near Wodonga. This event has advanced the cause of improving youth mental health services in the Albury-Wodonga region. It was the sale of a single Angus steer for $11,000. It set a new record at the historic first cattle sale at the newly opened Northern Victoria Livestock Exchange. Thompson Longhorn livestock handling equipment suppliers, together with the Albury Wodonga Stock Agents Association, celebrated the opening of the $20 million facility by purchasing the steer at a record price. This money will be used to support the Albury-Wodonga headspace facility. At a dinner held that same evening, an auction of items and services raised a further $12,000. This will provide a significant 'herd start' for headspace! Thank you, Thompson Longhorn and the stock agents association, for your significant and supportive decision. Congratulations to headspace manager Bek Nash-Webster and her team and to Gateway Health as the lead agency of the headspace consortium for all your hard work and energy in the establishment of headspace. The headspace centre is the result of a community campaign, supported by Di Thomas and the staff of TheBorder Mailand local media and appreciatively funded by the Commonwealth government. (Time expired) Lyne Electorate: Roads 45 13:37 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The federal coalition is getting on with the job of rolling out our $50 billion infrastructure package. In my electorate of Lyne, the people of the mid-North Coast of New South Wales are now seeing one of the biggest infrastructure projects being rolled out in our region's history, as the $1.05 billion upgrade of the Pacific Highway between Kempsey and Port Macquarie continues to make headway. Federal Labor ripped funding out of the Pacific Highway for years. Now, this government, the Abbott-Truss government, has restored funding to finally get this project and this important piece of national infrastructure back on track. From next Tuesday, a second span of girders for the overpass bridge at the new Sancrox Road interchange is to be lifted into place, marking another milestone of this component of the Port Macquarie to Kempsey upgrade. It is worth $30 million. While major work at this intersection started in 2014, everyone can see substantial progress in the coming weeks when major components of the overpass are installed. The two bridge spans will be supported by 14 girders over the Pacific Highway. Each girder will be lifted from a truck into its final position on the bridge. A huge crane will be used, and the girders will be secured with temporary bracing. Once in position, the bridge girders will be permanently secured, allowing construction of the bridge deck to begin. In addition to this, there are 933 direct construction jobs and an estimated 2,953 indirect jobs— (Time expired) Domestic Violence 45 13:39 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Yesterday afternoon I was very proud to be in this place as the Leader of the Opposition led a debate on a genuine matter of public importance—that is, the epidemic that is family violence. It was extraordinary to listen to the powerful contributions from members on both sides. I acknowledge my friends the member for Gellibrand and the member for Griffith, who spoke effectively, articulately and compellingly in that debate, as did the member for Sydney and the member for Jagajaga as well as government members. I hope that the words that were said here resonate beyond that debate. That is why it is so important that the Leader of the Opposition's call for a summit on family violence be heeded. It is so important that we expand the conversation around family violence and that we bring all relevant voices into this debate. While we take these steps to look to the future, to look to solutions and to look towards a world that is free from gender inequality and a country that is free from gender inequality, we cannot forget that victims today need support now. In my community, there are more than 40 referrals to Victoria Police related to family violence every week. Unfortunately, victims do not have the confidence that there are services available to support them through this process. While we embark upon this big conversation, this government must invest in valuable support services now. Moore Electorate: Quinns Rocks Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade 45 13:40 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I place on record great appreciation for the service of the dedicated members of the Quinns Rocks Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade, who have endured a very busy fire season this year, extinguishing fires locally and also travelling to help other brigades across the Perth metropolitan area when the need arose. The volunteers have been based at their purpose-built facility located in Hidden Valley Retreat, Clarkson, within the Moore electorate, since 2010. Construction of the modern fire station was made possible with funding from the state government of Western Australia and the federal government through Emergency Management Australia, along with donations from local individuals and companies. The new facility is centrally located, is close to major arterial roads and has sufficient capacity to garage all of the brigade's firefighting appliance vehicles in the same location, allowing for faster response times. The tireless work of the volunteer brigade members, City of Wanneroo employees, and local fire and emergency services staff are duly recognised in this parliament in providing a highly professional and operational firefighting service to our community. Domestic Violence 45 13:41 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra The horrific death of Tara Costigan last weekend has sent shockwaves through the Canberra community. So many people have been affected by this tragedy, and I am proud of the way Canberrans have rallied together to raise more than $76,000 for Tara's three children, who have been left without a mother. One of her children is not more than one week old. This morning I received an email from a woman whose children went to the same school as Tara's children. It reads: We cannot stop thinking about what Tara's two boys saw last Saturday. They will never, ever get over it. They will have that memory etched in their brains forever, flashing back to that moment for the rest of their lives. We cannot stop thinking about the newborn baby who is being cradled and fed by family members, but will never feel the loving arms of her mother. We cannot stop thinking about Tara. We are begging you—please take action to stop this from happening to another woman. We have to end this blight on our society. We have to stand together for Tara Costigan's three orphaned children and for the more than 130,000 Australian women who have been victims of violence by a current or a previous partner in the last 12 months alone. We must do better, and we must act now. Centenary of Anzac 46 13:43 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I rise today to update the House on some grants that have been awarded under the Centenary of Anzac Local Grants Program. The Moil Primary School will receive a grant of $5,000 so that they can produce a production called From Darwin to Dardanelles. The Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia Northern Territory Branch will receive a grant of $3,357 to assist them to rollout a program sharing Anzac history with the students in Solomon.    Girl Guides NT will receive a grant of $1,715 to construct an Anzac Centenary memorial garden at the Girl Guide NT headquarters in Parap. Darwin High School will receive a grant of $5,000 to assist them with a special Anzac function, saluting the silent service. The Darwin RSL will receive $50,000 to contribute towards a documentary about the Albert Borella Ride, which was jointly put on by the Northern Territory government and the federal government. Albert Borella is the Northern Territory's only Victoria Cross recipient. His son, Rowan, was accompanied by his wife, Mary, and they were on the ride. (Time expired) Domestic Violence 46 13:45 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Yesterday, members from all sides of the House joined together in this place for a debate about making the prevention of family violence a national priority. It was parliament at its best. We told stories instead of spruiking talking points. We sought to challenge the status quo rather than score political points. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the need for a national crisis summit to bring the voices of front-line service providers, advocates and survivors to the front of the political debate about the way forward. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition gave a powerful speech, naming the far too many women who have been killed already this year. The member for Pearce spoke passionately about his time as a Crown Prosecutor and his efforts in trying to convince victims of sexual assault and violence to take their allegations to trial. The member for Jagajaga spoke about the impact that working in Canberra's first women's refuge as a young woman has had on her career in the years since. The member for Griffith spoke about all the women that have to go to court alone to seek protection for themselves and their children, and the gender inequality that exists at the heart of family violence. The member for Ryan spoke about Australia's efforts to help prevent the astonishing levels of violence against women in Papua New Guinea, to our north. I spoke about learning from advocates and service providers about this issue after a member of my own community was killed in horrific and public circumstances in April of last year. We all agree that addressing family violence is a national priority. Let us make sure that our actions match our words. Mitchell Electorate: Clean Up Australia Day 46 13:46 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I congratulate all of the volunteers and hardworking people who engaged in Clean up Australia Day 2015 in the electorate of Mitchell and indeed in Western Sydney. I was pleased to host my own site, as I have done for 15 years—before and since I came to parliament—and I have always taken the view that Clean Up Australia Day represents one of those great programs in which people get together as a community and do something about their own local environment in a meaningful and practical way. So I thank all those 50 volunteers who turned up to the site that I hosted at Third Settlement Reserve in Winston Hills—those Winston Hills residents who were able to get up at 8 am and get into historic Toongabbie Creek and get rid of all the rubbish that we were able to remove from that creek, which was considerable. I thank Councillor Mark Taylor from the Hills Shire Council, who co-hosted the site with me and was a fantastic asset in this process; and the Deputy Mayor of the Hills Shire Council, Michelle Byrne; the Mayor of Parramatta, Scott Lloyd; and Parramatta Councillor Bob Dwyer—great support from our local councillors. We were also joined by the Girl Guides, who were fantastic in picking up all the rubbish on either side of the creek. As we have heard from other members, over 300,000 people participated in the first Clean Up Australia Day some 25 years ago, removing tonnes and tonnes of rubbish. It has become one of those iconic environmental programs that are uniquely Australian, where people get involved in their local community and do the hard work that needs to be done for the environment. I particularly thank all of those who assisted with putting the day together and all of the sites in Mitchell. Domestic Violence 47 13:48 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Yesterday in this parliament, we talked about the scourge of family and domestic violence, and the commitment that everyone in this place is making to tackling family and domestic violence. We know that 17 per cent of women experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime from a current or former partner. That means that there are so many women in our community who have survived domestic and family violence. Sadly, there are a lot of women in our community who have not survived. The statistic that is often quoted is that one woman a week is killed at the hands of a current or former partner. This year that has increased, to this nation's great shame. For all of those reasons, it was very, very pleasing that the Leader of the Opposition yesterday announced a policy calling for an urgent national crisis summit in respect of family and domestic violence that would bring together stakeholders, including all levels of governments, to commit to implementing the necessary reforms to eliminate family and domestic violence. He also called for interim measures to ensure survivors of family and domestic violence are safe at home and measures to ensure appropriate levels of funding for community legal centres that provide assistance to victims of family and domestic violence. I mentioned the Women's Legal Service at Annerley in Queensland, an important service; and there are many like it across this country that assist women fleeing violent situations. Victorian Government 47 13:49 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite The Andrews government in Victoria has already destroyed 7,000 jobs because of its reckless decision to cancel the East West Link project. These are jobs that must be saved, this is a road that must be built and this is a contract that must be honoured. Now there are concerns over Victoria's response to the multibillion dollar Land 400 Defence project. With the tender for Land 400 now open, Victoria is lagging badly behind and needs to immediately announce a package of incentives to bring a large slice of this vital project to Geelong. So far, we have heard nothing. Premier Andrews must get on the front foot and start fighting for these jobs and the incredible opportunities that Land 400 would bring to our region. The South Australian government is offering an estimated $100 million in manufacturing infrastructure, support and other incentives. Where is the Victorian government's package—financial incentives, payroll and other tax concessions, fast-tracking of planning approvals, manufacturing infrastructure, a Land 400 regional headquarters? Defence SA has Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston; where is Victoria's Land 400 ambassador? Premier Andrews is wasting vital time and needs to start fighting for Land 400 jobs with all the determination and commitment that his government can muster. Domestic Violence 47 13:51 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby Like most members in this place, I meet regularly with community and police representatives in my electorate. Recently, I was horrified but not surprised to learn from the Lake Illawarra Local Area Command that, within the Illawarra district, there are 17 cases a day of domestic violence reported to the police. On a weekly basis, there are 119 cases of domestic violence reported. The unreported cases would eclipse these figures. We were informed recently by the Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, that nationally two women die each week—well over 100 each year—due to domestic violence. It is a private catastrophe but it is also a national shame; it is a national public shame. So I take this opportunity to join with the Leader of the Opposition in calling for a national summit on family violence. I congratulate him on his announcement this week that, in government, Labor would invest $15 million in grants to assist women and their families stay at home and secure their home after an incidence of family violence. In addition to that, Labor would provide in excess of $42 million for front-line community services, including legal services, to ensure, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, that if you have to go to court to should never walk through the system alone. I would be very happy if these announcements were adopted by the government in the forthcoming budget. Moruya District Hospital 47 13:52 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro On Monday, 16 February, together with the New South Wales Treasurer and member for Bega, Andrew Constance, I opened the new $11.8 million Eurobodalla subacute rehabilitation unit at the Moruya District Hospital. To mark this important achievement under the government's COAG subacute beds program, we were joined by Jenny Symons, chair of the Southern New South Wales Local Health District board; Dr Max Alexander, its Chief Executive; Dr Belinda Doherty, Director of Medical Services, South Coast; Lisa Kennedy, General Manager, Eurobodalla Health Service; Kath Smith, President of the Moruya District Hospital Auxiliary; Councillor Rob Pollock, Deputy Mayor of Eurobodalla Shire Council and chair of Moruya Cancer Carers. I make special mention of Aunty Doris Moore, who not only made us welcome to country but also told us her family story of trips to Sydney to visit ill members and how this new facility promises to bring care much closer to home on the south coast. The 20-bed unit increases the number of bets at Moruya Hospital by 50 per cent and fills the gap between the hospital's acute care and home based rehabilitation care. I also note the presence on the day of Brad Rossiter, chair of the Eurobodalla Community Health Service representative committee, and Russell Schneider, Eurobodalla Community Health Service committee member, both of whom are ardent advocates for health services in the region and reliable sources of advice for me. The new unit is further evidence of the government's ongoing commitment to public hospitals and there is more to come. Domestic Violence 48 13:54 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong This week Labor called for a national crisis summit on family violence. Of course, along with a national summit, help at the grassroots always matters to keeping women safe at home and supported in our legal system. On average, victims of family violence move three times—three upheavals, starting again without your support network of friends and family, with your self-confidence at its lowest ebb. Finding work offers women the opportunity to rebuild their confidence and their economic independence after this trauma. Fitted for Work is a small not-for-profit that helps survivors of family violence prepare for a new start. It empowers women through building skills and confidence through interview training, a transition to work program and a free business-clothes outfitting service. It is something that many of us take for granted, but having a new outfit for a job interview can make all the difference. A remarkable 75 per cent of women who visit Fitted for Work are employed within three months. Fitted for Work relies on donations and has a team of dedicated, humble volunteers. On 10 March, Tuxedo Tuesday, we can all help their work. I encourage everyone to sponsor or join Team Shorten by wearing tuxedo like attire on 10 March and donating online. For every $110 that we raise we can empower another vulnerable woman. Every dollar counts, so please give generously. Abrahams, Mr David 48 13:55 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I offer my heartiest congratulations to David Abrahams on being named the 2014 Volunteer of the Year at the recent New South Wales awards presentation held at the Kirribilli Club in Sydney in December. David received the award for his lifetime commitment to his community through volunteering spanning 67 years, commencing at age 17 when he became rugby club secretary. David says that he just grew up with volunteering, 'My mum used to say, "Dad was out doing something eight nights a week." I enjoy the company and I like helping people.' David has taken on leadership roles at every organisation he has been involved in: the Clarence River Jockey Club, the Grafton Pony Club, the Clarence River Masters Swimming Club, the Grafton chamber of commerce, Cowper children's home, Clarence children's village, Livingstone House, the Retail Traders Association, Grafton U3A and more. He has assisted with fundraising for organisations and volunteered with the Sydney Olympics and the Melbourne Commonwealth Games. David said, on being named volunteer of the year that the award itself was not the great thing; sitting in the Kirribilli Club overlooking Darling Harbour with 250 like-minded people from around the state was my reward. He said: I didn't know I would win it. I was over the moon for myself, the people behind me and for the people of Grafton and the Clarence Valley. I thank David for his efforts. Domestic Violence 48 13:57 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley The issue of domestic violence sparks in me a deep anger, an anger that people who are vulnerable are forced to witness or endure the impact of domestic violence. I think of the statistics that say that children who witness domestic violence are more likely to perpetrate that violence themselves when they become adults. But then I think anger does not cut it. Anger is the wrong emotion to feel in this instance. It is misplaced. It is the worst emotion to feel. What is needed—and I am told this quite often when I speak to people who are at the front-line in dealing with domestic violence—is that we need to focus on the issue, that we need to talk about the issue and that we cannot sweep the issue under the carpet. That is why, when we have the call that the Leader of the Opposition has made, as Labor has called for a domestic violence summit, this is critical to focus the nation on the need to act as one. There are many people in this place who rightly feel, regardless of political colour, that we should get the nation focused on this and dedicate work to it. We should be dedicating work to the safe as houses grants. We should be dedicating more to front-line services. We should be mapping perpetrator action so we can avoid domestic violence. We should be acting as one to ensure that the vulnerable, the children, are not affected any further by domestic violence. Pitt, Ms Turia 49 13:58 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie Last Friday, I had the chance to attend a lunch at the Belvedere Hotel put on by the Our Village Foundation. It was an Inspiring Women event. There were a few hundred people there to hear Turia Pitt, who was the guest speaker. For many Australians, Turia Pitt has become a name synonymous with resilience. Turia's life was overturned when she was trapped by a raging fire during a 100-kilometre ultramarathon event in the Kimberley in 2011. She suffered burns to 65 per cent of her body. In fact, her doctors said she was burnt so badly that she was almost cooked. It was incredible that she survived. Her story really is incredible. She went through years of recovery, in and out of hospital and plastic surgery. But what I found interesting is that Turia does not want to be as fit as she was before—she does not want to be as fit as she was when she was an ultramarathon runner; she wants to be fitter. I say to the people in my electorate, to everyone here in the gallery and to people listening today: what is it in your life that you are making excuses about? What is it in your life that you want to achieve?—because in this life, of course, we can do anything. The SPEAKER SE4 Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Death Penalty 49 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the parliament meets in the shadow of the possible execution of two young Australian men. This is an unimaginably difficult time for these two men and their families. Can the Prime Minister update the House on Australia's efforts to seek clemency for Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran? 14:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his important and serious question. I thank him for the conversations that we have been able to have on this subject and for the substantial unanimity that we have achieved on this subject. I think it is to Australia's credit that government and opposition are able to speak with one voice on a matter such as this, and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to add to my own thoughts at the conclusion of this answer. We do stand together on this. We are all, when it comes to this, Australians first and members of different political parties second. As Australians, we abhor drug crime—we stand resolutely against drug crime—but we are against the death penalty as well, particularly for people who have been on death row for more than a decade and who are obviously substantially rehabilitated. This question of these impending executions touches our values. We are a decent and humane people who stand up for good wherever we can, and we certainly stand up for our citizens wherever we can. It also touches our interests. Our interests are involved here. We want the best possible relationship with Indonesia and our relationship with Indonesia must continue regardless of anything that might happen in the next few days. But we want the best possible relationship with the best possible Indonesia. And how can it be in Indonesia's interest to kill these two men, who are now helping Indonesia in the fight against drug crime? How can it possibly be in Indonesia's interest to kill these men, who are a credit to the Indonesian penal system's capacity to rehabilitate; its capacity to uplift and even inspire? I want the best for Indonesia. I regard myself as a friend of Indonesia. I have travelled to Indonesia privately and publicly. Indonesia is a country on the cusp of greatness. But how can it possibly help Indonesia to go ahead with these executions? How can it possibly help Indonesia to go ahead with the executions of the some 60 foreigners now on death row for drug crime in Indonesia? How can it possibly help them? So, as someone who wants nothing but good thing for Indonesia—as a government and as a parliament that want nothing but good for Indonesia—we are speaking as one united voice, publicly and privately, in every way we can. Pull back from this brink. Do not just realise what is in your own best interests but realise what is in your own best values. 14:04 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong on indulgence—I support what the Prime Minister has said. Labor's thoughts, like all of Australia's, are with these two young men and their families. It is unimaginable what they are experiencing. I do not believe that Australia is seeking forgiveness for these two men or, indeed, to free them, but by all accounts they have changed. They have repented of what they have done, they have understood the mistakes they have made and they are making remarkable contributions in terms of what they do now. Some people have said to me, 'But it's drugs. People know the law of the land they travel into and, really, that's all that you can expect in this matter.' What I would say—and this parliament, I genuinely believe, supports this—is: the death penalty will solve nothing. The execution of these two young men will solve nothing. There are legal processes underway. We would seek that they be allowed to continue and be resolved. I would also endorse what the Prime Minister said: the entire parliament is united on this matter. We are united in seeking that the President of Indonesia, presenting the great and strong and generous nature of the Indonesian people, would grant clemency to these two men, just as the Indonesian government seeks clemency for its citizens when facing execution elsewhere. Intergenerational Report: 2015 50 14:05 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House what the 2015 Intergenerational report says about Australia's future? 14:06 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I thank the member for Corangamite for her question and I can inform the House that today the government has released the fourth Intergenerational report, the Intergenerational report which provides a road map of our nation's likely development over the next four decades. I am pleased to say that the Intergenerational report shows clearly that our country's best days are ahead of us. Our country's best days are ahead of us, provided government plays to our strengths as a nation and provided government can live within its means. Australians will live longer and better lives amidst ever-boosted prosperity, provided government remains serious about economic reform in the decades ahead, as it has been for much of the decades past. The good news that the Intergenerational report shows is that the structural reforms already proposed by this government, and passed by this parliament, have halved the deficit that was left to us by the former government. The reforms proposed by this government, and passed by this parliament, have halved deficits that were heading for 12 per cent of GDP. They have halved debt that was heading for 120 per cent of GDP under the policies of the former government. All of this is now well on the road to repair as the Intergenerational report shows. It shows that the debt and deficit problem that was out of control under the former government is now coming back under control thanks to a government that takes economic reform seriously. What this should do is give Australians much greater confidence about our long-term future. There is so much room for optimism about this great country of ours right now: interest rates are low and stable; petrol prices are lower than they have been for years; last year power prices fell by the largest amount on record; and we have a dollar which is low and competitive and looks like being stable for quite some time. And we have a government which is open for business and serious about economic reform—a government which has gotten rid of the carbon tax; a government which has scrapped the mining tax; a government which has delivered $2 billion in business red tape cost reductions; and, above all else, a government which has delivered three free trade agreements that have defeated governments for a decade. I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a better Australia than I did. A government's task is to make it so, and this government is delivering. Intergenerational Report: 2015 50 14:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to page 42 of the government's Intergenerational report. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the government believes that climate change may be beneficial? 14:09 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I am happy to say to the Leader of the Opposition that climate change is real, humanity makes a difference, and it is very important for government to put in place strong and effective policies to deal with it. But I do suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that this is a report that should provide the foundation for an intelligent and sensible national conversation on how we do the right thing by our country. That is what we need. We need an intelligent and sensible conversation about how we do the right thing by our country by tackling the real problems that we face. That is what we should do. The Intergenerational report has been prepared by the experts in Treasury. The Intergenerational report just has facts, and the facts are not Labor, the facts are not Liberal, the facts are not National, the facts are not Green—facts are facts. What we must do as a nation is deal with the facts of the problems and the opportunities that we have, and that is precisely what this government is doing. We are dealing with the facts and we are dealing with the challenges and the opportunities that we face. I am very proud to lead a government which has faced up to reality and already, thanks to the policies that we have proposed and that this parliament has supported, the debt and deficit problem which we inherited has been halved. I understand that there might be a temptation on the part of member's opposite to go scouring through this document looking for political ammunition. There might be a temptation to scour this document to try to score political points. But I think we have seen the better angels of the Leader of the Opposition on a lot of subjects lately, and I am confident that this parliament is better than that. We can make serious efforts to address our nation's problems, and we will address them better if we can do it in a bipartisan spirit. Intergenerational Report: 2015 51 14:12 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the opportunity that the Intergenerational report represents for Australia's future? How does the government intend to respond to the report? 14:12 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I thank the honourable member for Mitchell for his question and recognise that he, like all others on this side of the House and hopefully everyone on the other side of the House, is prepared to engage in a conversation with the Australian people about the destiny of the nation and the quality of life that we are going to bequeath to future generations of Australians. The Intergenerational report is a compact between the generations—between grandparents and grandchildren, between parents and children and between brothers and sisters. This is about determining our future and influencing our future. One of the most stark figures in the Intergenerational report, which looks forward 40 years, is that the trajectory of longevity is going to continue. While life expectancy in the early 1900s was around 55, by the middle of this century life expectancy for newborns will be around 100. What that is going to do is change the way we live our lives. It is going to put different pressures on our lives that are in many ways quite different to those that we have had and the people that have gone before us had. Those days of the traditional life pattern of studying while you are young, working in middle ages and retiring when you are older are being turned on their heads with longevity, as we seek to go in and out of the workforce at various points and as we seek to better utilise technology to ensure that we can lift our output and lift our productivity. Importantly we need to start planning now for the future. This is a conversation that the Australian people actually want to have. They want to talk about how we can have a more prosperous future and how we can work together to build the infrastructure, to strengthen prosperity and to ensure that we get the very best out of the many positive days we have ahead. Of course, that is going to take effort. The biggest driver of wealth creation is inevitably going to be what we can do to lift our output— Ms Owens interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Parramatta is warned! Mr HOCKEY DK6 to lift our output on an hourly basis. Each hour we work today has twice the output of someone working in 1970. If we can continue that trend of improving our output, more bang for our buck, that means that we can have a better quality of life and a more prosperous future. So, over the days, weeks and months ahead, every single member of the government, and I really hope every single member of the opposition and everyone involved in the community, is going to engage in the conversation about how we can have a more prosperous future, not just for ourselves but for the generations of Australians ahead. Intergenerational Report: 2015 51 14:15 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. Page 42 of the Intergenerational report acknowledges that over the past 40 years climate change has caused the south of Australia to become hotter, drier and more vulnerable to fire. Why then does the report include absolutely no information about climate change over the next 40 years? Is this just another example of the Prime Minister's refusal to accept the science of climate change? 14:16 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I do hope that the opposition may be able to lift themselves from the spirit of partisanship, lift themselves from the kind of politicking which too often disfigures debate in this parliament, and try to look fairly and squarely at the issues facing our country. As an example of how sensible and rational and realistic and balanced this report is, let me read what it says about climate change: Some economic effects may be beneficial — where regions become warmer or wetter this may allow for increased agricultural output — while others may be harmful. For example, lower rainfall may reduce crop yields, or transport infrastructure (such as roads, ports and rail networks) may become more susceptible to damage from extreme weather events. So do justice to this report. Do justice to the expertise of the Treasury officials who have put it together. If you read on, the report talks about the way forward on climate change. We have a strong and effective policy to deal with climate change. It involves establishing an emissions reduction fund that will deliver us better soils, more trees, smarter technology. As a result of these policies, we will achieve a 12 per cent reduction by 2020 on 2005 emissions levels. This is not just a 12 per cent reduction per head; it is a 30 per cent reduction. It is a 30 per cent reduction on 2005 levels on a per capita basis. This is a remarkably strong performance. We are not a government that runs around habitually blowing our trumpet, but when it comes to climate change, when it comes to actually reducing emissions, this country's record, under the policies of this government, will be absolutely amongst the best in the world. Intergenerational Report: 2015 52 14:19 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, you have said that we need to stop intergenerational theft against our children and grandchildren and that we need to act urgently today to avoid dire consequences tomorrow. But, given how short a time the experts are giving us to avoid a massive attack on the Australian way of life, why won't you say the same about climate change? Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my right! The Prime Minister has the call and he would be assisted if those on my right did not interject. 14:19 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah It would help if the member for Melbourne actually listened to the question time debate and was able to recast his question, if necessary, because I have already given the answer. We are taking strong and effective action on climate change. By 2020 we will have delivered a 12 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels, and on a per capita basis we will have delivered a 30 per cent reduction in emissions on 2005 levels. This is amongst the best performance of any country in the world. What we want to do is to achieve the right environmental outcomes without damaging the best economic outcomes. That is what we want to do. We do not believe that you help the environment by torpedoing the economy. That is what members opposite would do when they bring back the carbon tax. When it comes to climate change, members opposite are basically being dictated to by the Greens. That is the problem. I say to members opposite: stand up for yourselves, stand up for the jobs of the workers who have historically supported you, and say to the Greens, 'We won't have any more of this carbon tax nonsense. We won't have any more of these economic hits. We will tackle climate change in ways which are good for the environment and good for the economy too.' That is what this government was elected to do—to tackle climate change in a way which does not damage the economy—and that is exactly what we are delivering. Intergenerational Report: 2015 52 14:21 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please update the House on the Intergenerational report's findings with respect to the importance of infrastructure to support productivity growth?   Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 We will have silence on my left so that we can hear. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call, and we will not have any more of those reflections, thank you very much. Mr Bowen interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Member for McMahon is warned. The choice as to whether he stays or goes is now his. 14:22 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. What is obvious from members opposite is that they are trying to put their heads in the sand and discredit the report, because they have no confidence in the future of this country. They are trying to talk down the achievements of our country and our potential for the future. This report has an enormous amount of information in it about what our country will be like. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Member for Wakefield will leave standing order under 94(a). It is Thursday; he always enjoys an early mark. And take a bus! The member for W akefield then left the chamber. Mr TRUSS GT4 The Intergenerational report makes it clear that as a nation we will have a larger population and a bigger economy, and therefore we will need to invest substantially in providing the infrastructure to support a bigger nation—a nation that is contributing more internationally and providing a better lifestyle for the people of the country. Indeed, the report identifies infrastructure investment as absolutely critical to our economic future. That is why this government's $50 billion investment in infrastructure is so timely and so important for the future. It is important to this generation because it is creating jobs. It is creating economic activity now. But it builds the basic lifelines that will be so essential to underpin our economy in 40 years time. What we are doing now is therefore an investment in the future. It helps build our nation now, but it is also an investment in the future. I guess there is no area where this is more important than in Western Sydney, where a large proportion of our nation's growth will actually occur. The forecasts are that there will be substantial population growth in Western Sydney. That is an area that is going to need significant infrastructure investment, and our $3-plus billion package for Western Sydney will help provide some of that vital infrastructure to support the growth in that region. Not only will we be building new roads and other important infrastructure of that nature—such as the new airport—this will be an area that will be a real part of the life and breadth of the new Sydney. That is work that we are undertaking now. Eight thousand people will be engaged on the roadworks project that we have committed to for that region. This is an investment in Western Sydney. It is an investment in providing infrastructure for today. It creates jobs and economic growth today, but it is also an investment in the future of that region, to ensure that it will have a lifestyle befitting its population and will contribute to the nation as a part of our intergenerational growth. Mr Ciobo 00AN0 I rise on a point of order. The member for Charlton made repeated disparaging comments about older Australians, and he should withdraw them. The SPEAKER SE4 Most certainly! Withdraw them. Mr Conroy 249127 Madam Speaker, I said nothing about older Australians, but I withdraw to assist the House. The SPEAKER SE4 It would be rather unwise if you did! Intergenerational Report: 2015 53 14:26 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Intergenerational report released today. Is the Prime Minister's only plan for the future to make Australians work longer and to cut their pensions? 14:26 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I certainly want Australians to achieve their economic potential. That is what I want. I want all Australians to achieve their economic potential and, for some of them, perhaps for many of them, that will mean working to an age that might not have been readily thought of in times past, because we are living longer and healthier lives. We are absolutely living longer and healthier lives. In the days when the pension age was set at 65, life expectancy at birth was under 60. Today, it is over 80. It is going up all the time, and healthy life expectancy is improving even faster and further. I acknowledge that. Members opposite used to acknowledge that. Early in their time in government they raised the pension age to 67. When they proposed this, they received full support from the then opposition, now the government. When members opposite came up with sensible policies we supported of them, because that is what an intelligent and constructive political party does. When its opposition proposes something intelligent and constructive, it engages and it supports. That is what it does. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Member for Charlton! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I think it makes sense to give more Australians more opportunities to live longer and more productive working lives. Why wouldn't members opposite agree with that? Why wouldn't they be prepared to enter into an intelligent national conversation about this? That is all we want. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Member for Bendigo will desist. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 If members opposite do not like our policies to help people live longer and more productive working lives, they should tell us what their policies are. This was supposed to be the year of ideas. Give us one. So far the only idea they have come up with is to spend $100 million on the ATO to raise $1 billion. Well, next time they will be telling us to spend $1 billion on the ATO to raise $10 billion. That is the problem. All they can think of is spending more and taxing more. They just cannot help themselves. I actually think that deep down the Leader of the Opposition is better than that, and I would ask him to start demonstrating that now. Economic Diplomacy 53 14:30 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. How will this government's policy of economic diplomacy boost Australia's prosperity and create jobs for this generation and those to come? Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 One more utterance from the member for Moreton and he will leave. You may begin your question again, without interruption. Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. How will this government's policy of economic diplomacy boost Australia's prosperity and create jobs for this generation and those to come? 14:30 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Lyons for his question, and I acknowledge his efforts in promoting economic activity in his home state of Tasmania. Under this government Australia is open for business. We want to see more jobs for Australians, a strong and growing economy, greater investment and more opportunities for Australia's trade and export businesses. I have put what we call 'economic diplomacy' at the heart of Australia's engagement with the world. The goal of traditional diplomacy is peace. The goal of economic diplomacy is prosperity. We are harnessing our diplomatic network to promote Australia as an attractive place to invest and do business. I have requested every one of our 96 heads of mission overseas to produce a business plan for our diplomatic teams to identify opportunities for the private sector to increase trade and investment between Australia and the host country. Yesterday the government published the first edition of what we call Business Envoy, a bi-monthly publication that shares market intelligence from our global diplomatic network. This is going to be a great resource, a great tool, for Australian businesses. We have delivered on our promise to promote and conclude free trade agreements with Korea, China and Japan. Together these nations account for about 55 per cent of all of Australia's exports. These agreements mean more jobs for Australians. It is expected that the Korea free trade agreement alone will help create 1,700 jobs from increased exports in its first year of operation. The Japanese free trade agreement is the most liberalising agreement on agriculture that Japan has ever undertaken, creating significant opportunities for Australia's dairy, beef and seafood industries, which will be important for Tasmania. The agreement also slashes tariffs on manufactured goods and guarantees access to the Japanese market for services, including from our finance, legal, education and tourism sectors. The recently concluded China free trade agreement will produce a similar story. All free trade agreements were finalised and achieved within 16 months of taking office. We are also investing in a generation of students through the New Colombo Plan to better understand our region and the opportunities our region offers. We want our young people to be more Asia-literate so that they can take advantage of the re-emergence of Asia as a dynamic economic region—a projected middle class, a consumer class, of over three billion people—within the next 15 years. The challenges and opportunities identified in the Intergenerational report that the Treasurer released today make it even more important that we continue to find new markets and enhance existing markets, enhance the established markets, for our goods and services. This will enhance our future prosperity. This government has shown that it has the vision and the resolve to achieve this. Intergenerational Report: 2015 54 14:34 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to page 69 of the Intergenerational report which assumes pension indexation will switch from CPI to the higher average weekly earnings in 2028-29. From that year pensions would be higher than under the Prime Minister's CPI adjustments. Will the Prime Minister now admit that pensioners will be worse off for 12 years because of his cuts to pension indexation? You cannot say no, there is a graph in the book. 14:34 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I am absolutely committed to a strong and sustainable social security safety net. Under this government pensions will go up twice a year every year. The idea that somehow there are cuts to pensions is simply false. Never ever will any pension go down. The pension will go up twice a year every year. It will go up by the same indexation method that the member who asked the question put in place for family tax benefits. If the member who asked the question thought it was good enough for families, why isn't it good enough for pensioners? If it was so good for families that the member who asked the question put it in place, why isn't it right and proper for pensioners? This is a document which sets out the challenges and the opportunities facing our country. We can grasp a much better future, we really can. What we have to do is ensure that over time we live within our means. It really reflects poorly on members opposite who, having criticised our policy, have come up with absolutely no policy of their own, not a single policy, not a word of a positive policy from members opposite. When the member who asked the question was in government— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Griffith is not in her seat. If she speaks again she will be removed from the chamber. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 occasionally she had an idea. One of her ideas was to have CPI for family tax benefit. It was not a bad idea. It was supported by the then opposition. I think the now opposition should return the compliment. Education 55 14:37 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney My question is to the Minister for Education and Training. Will the minister inform the House what progress has been made to ensure the national curriculum is robust and useful? How will an improved curriculum ensure Australians are more productive in the future? 14:37 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I thank the member for Tangney for his question. I can assure him and the House that the Intergenerational report has a very heavy emphasis on productivity in the future for Australia and participation in the workforce. One of the most important aspects, of course, to productivity is the education of Australians, the skilling of Australians, the retraining and training of Australians, higher education, but particularly schools. I have very good news for the House today, just hot off the press. At an Education Council of Ministers meeting at 12.30 today, they unanimously endorsed the proposed actions of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority to implement the Australian government's response to the Wiltshire-Donnelly curriculum review. This will come as a very nasty blow to the Labor Party because they insisted that the Wiltshire-Donnelly review should be consigned to the dustbin. They did everything they could to discredit the Wiltshire-Donnelly review, which was an excellent document, an objective document, about how to make our curriculum robust and effective and useful for young people. I congratulate all the ministers, state and territory, Labor and Liberal, who have unanimously today endorsed the government's response and the implementation by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. What it will mean for the future of Australian schoolchildren is that they will be educated in a more robust and relevant and useful curriculum. Specifically, it will have more depth and less breadth. It will reduce the quantity of content in the curriculum. It will de-clutter the primary school curriculum, combining history, geography, civics and citizenship, and economics and business—four separate subjects into one subject in primary school. Importantly, for parents around Australia who have been crying out for this for a long time, it will ensure an appropriate emphasis is placed on phonics and phonemic awareness in the Australian curriculum in English, which will specifically mean the involvement of Macquarie University and their MultiLit program in the training of school students in how to read and write. So it acknowledges for the first time and puts at the centre of the curriculum the acknowledgement that reading and writing, and emerging from school being able to do so, is so important that students should be trained in the practical application of how to do so through phonics and phonemic awareness. I am absolutely delighted with more good news from the Abbott government that we are getting on with the job, whether it is teacher training, independent public schools, improvement in the curriculum, parental engagement, higher education reform—just what the Intergenerational report requires. Intergenerational Report: 2015 55 14:40 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Treasurer's claim on 17 February that the Intergenerational report is independent analysis. Why is the government claiming that the Intergenerational report is independent when it is actually one last, desperate attempt to sell your unfair budget? 14:41 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I was a little worried for the member for McMahon. We have released a major Treasury document, we are three quarters of the way through question time and he has been in witness protection. So the Prime Minister has asked me to take this question to give him the answer. This document is prepared under the very same legislation that the member for Lilley prepared the Intergenerational report five years ago. He is still here. I would urge the member for McMahon to get onto his feet and walk over and counsel the well-tanned member for Lilly, seek his counsel. He looks very relaxed. We remember the last one: more air than the Hindenburg, the last IGR. But this time around, we have worked with the Public Service to deliver a document. If there is any part of this document that the member for McMahon wants to dispute, then please stand up and dispute the facts, challenge the facts. We are prepared to engage in that discussion— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs will desist. Mr HOCKEY DK6 The member for Isaacs just proves there always has to be more than one clown in a circus. I would say to you: we are always prepared to engage in sensible conversation. We want to. But the suggestion that this is prepared in any way other than the way it has been done by Treasurer Costello or Treasurer Swan—in fact, this is more independent than Treasurer Swan's because we are not running some— Mr Swan interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Lilley! Mr HOCKEY DK6 How is that a surplus going, Swanny? The SPEAKER SE4 The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Lilley will withdraw. The member for Lilley knows perfectly well he is using parliamentary language and has been asked to leave the chamber on more than one occasion for similar offences. So I would simply ask him to withdraw. Mr Swan 2V5 I am not withdrawing. The SPEAKER SE4 In that case, you may have an early mark and leave under 94(a). Mr HOCKEY DK6 It simply proves what I have been saying. We want to have a sensible, mature debate about where Australia is heading. We want to use all the information available to be part of that debate. We think— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my left! Mr Giles interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Scullin is not in his seat and may not speak at all. Mr HOCKEY DK6 Australians deserve the opportunity to participate in a constructive conversation about how we can have a decent quality of life into the future. Most importantly, we want to make sure that the generations that follow us in this great country have the very best future they could possibly have. If we contribute now, we can make sure that tomorrow is even better. Intergenerational Report: 2015 56 14:44 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Can the minister outline to the House the steps that government is taking to grow the economy and also boost productivity to help small businesses into the future? Opposition members interjecting— 14:45 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley Thank you to the members opposite for their encouragement! I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question and also the excellent input he is providing to our government's small business and jobs package. The great promise of our country is that subsequent generations will have it better than those who were here before them. That is what the Intergenerational report maps out. It talks about the great achievements of this country and the men and women who have built a great nation and seen improvements in living standards and income over decades. It also makes the very simple and clear point that by taking sensible steps today we can care for and prepare for our future. We can underwrite our living standards and we can make sure that the great promise of our country is delivered to those who follow an our footsteps. It highlights why getting the budget on a sustainable footing is important and that we need to boost our productivity and we need to lift workforce participation. Exhilarating our productivity is going to be a big ask, given the ageing of our population and the dynamism in our economy. We are ready for it, our nation is up for it and this government is putting in place the very policies that are needed to support that. Small business is the engine room of our economy. There will be small business men and women across our continent who will play a key role in boosting productivity, supporting participation and raising living standards into the future. Yes, there will be demographic changes. There will be changes and transitions in our economy. There is the digitisation of our economy and the way that we live. There are new markets and hundreds of millions of new customers. All of that is very exciting and challenging at the same time. What can we do as a parliament and as a government? We can put the right settings in place so that we can take those opportunities, make them our own and raise our living standards and our quality of life into the future. This is a very substantial report that confirms much of what the government is doing. In the report, it says that many things influence our productivity, such as the type and extent of regulation. This is why we have been working so hard to remove red tape. It speaks about the levels of competition. That is why we have got a once-in-a-generation reform and review of the competition laws, headed by Professor Harper. It is about incentives for businesses to operate efficiency. We are doing the very work that responds to the prescription needed to prepare today for the opportunities and quality of life into the future. I think the Australian men and women of small business are ready for this challenge, but they need this parliament to get behind their efforts and their enterprise. I know that on this side of the House we are doing all we can to energise enterprise. I hope those opposite see that this is a call to them: if they cannot contribute to that effort, at least get out of the road so that we can get on with it. Superannuation 56 14:47 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister's new-found passion for sensible conversations about facts and Australians living longer, why did the government freeze superannuation increases for 11 million Australians, costing billions of dollars in forgone requirement income and extra age pension expenditure? 14:48 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I do not accept the premise of the question, because we have made no changes to superannuation rules other than doing what we said we would do before the last election. That was not paying out for policies that were supposed to be funded by the mining tax, which raised no money. We said before the election that we were not going to continue policies that were funded by the mining tax, because the mining tax was a bad tax that was raising no money. It was costing jobs and it was damaging confidence. How could you sustain policies that were supposed to be funded by a tax that was raising no money? This was the genius of members opposite. They were the only government in our history that was able to find a new tax that raised no money but did damage jobs and did damage confidence. That is the only change in superannuation that I can recall; that is, the changes that we made arising from our repeal of the mining tax. We were absolutely upfront before the last election about what we are going to do here. What we said we would do, we have done. We deliver. That is what this government does. Employment 57 14:50 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will you inform the House of the steps the government is taking to increase workforce participation in the future for all Australians? 14:50 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Like the member for Cowan and like everyone on this side of the House, we are very optimistic about the future. The Intergenerational report talks about an optimistic future. I commend the Treasurer for bringing it forward to the House today, because we are optimistic about the future. One of the challenges that we have as we go forward and realise that future is that we need to work on the workforce participation of the future, because—as I would hope everyone in this House knows and certainly those on this side of the House know—the best form of welfare is a job. It is important that we create the jobs in the future that give the people of this country the opportunity of a job rather than a life on welfare. We have three key areas where we are focused. First of all, we want to support young people to get ready for work, get into work and stick in work. We do not want to resign a generation of Australians to being a generation on welfare. That is a key focus of this government. We want to help families stay in work when they have children. There is no doubt that the mothers of Australia are the hardest working Australians of the lot, whether they are in paid work or whether they are in unpaid work. It is true for so many families that both parents have to work to ensure that they can live up to the aspirations that they have for their family. That is particularly true of single parents and single mothers. That is the key focus of what we are trying to do with our child care changes. We are working with the opposition to seek to achieve those changes. It is so important that we agree on the funding for these changes. The third area we are looking to focus on is ensuring that we continue to work as we age as a country and as a population. Our baby boomers need to be the ageing boomers. That is what this report is all about: how we can realise the ageing boom that this country now has before us as an opportunity. We are not alone. Developed countries all around the world are going through the issue of an ageing population. We can either see that as a glass half full or as a glass half empty. On this side of the House, we see that as a glass half full, because we can see that those Australians who have driven our economy as consumers and as workers over their lifetime, from birth all the way through to now, will continue to do so. We want the baby boomers to continue to be the super-consumers of the future, to drive our economy, and to drive the opportunities that we can realise. These are the same people who went out into our suburbs and created those great suburbs of our cities, who involved themselves in community work over a lifetime, and who raised a new generation of Australians. They do not have to stop now. We need to do all we can to encourage them to continue in the way that they have over their lifetimes. We are living longer and we are living healthier—and that is a great opportunity for this country. I am surprised those opposite are so negative about this report and so negative about the future. Health Care 57 14:53 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Minister for Health. Yesterday in question time the minister said: …those who can make a modest contribution to the cost of their care should be encouraged to do so. How will the government be encouraging Australians to make a modest contribution? Isn't the government simply planning another GP tax? 14:54 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank the member for Sydney for her question. She asks about policies and ideas that have come to the coalition in government. I have heard many ideas. I have heard ideas from my colleagues on the back bench. I have heard ideas from doctors. Ms Plibersek 83M Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The minister cannot rephrase the question and ask the question she wants me to ask. The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume her seat. There is no point of order. Ms LEY 00AMN I appreciate the chance to answer the question. The policy ideas are coming thick and fast during our consultation phase. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs. Ms LEY 00AMN The shadow minister for health has said that Labor have been putting together their policies for the last 18 months. Where are they? Does that mean that there weren't any policies when they were in government? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Jagajaga will desist. The member for Kingsford Smith will desist. Ms LEY 00AMN When it comes to policies, there are policies that we have ruled out. We have ruled out, absolutely, means testing of Medicare. Have the opposition likewise ruled out means testing of Medicare? We have ruled out increasing the Medicare levy—categorically. We have ruled that out. Have the opposition ruled out means testing and increasing the Medicare levy? Do we therefore understand that the opposition's policies are: means testing of Medicare and raising the Medicare levy? We have ruled these out. Where are your policies? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 There will be silence on my left. Ms LEY 00AMN In Labor's year of big ideas there are no ideas. There are no ideas from Labor about ensuring sustainability. There have, of course, been questions about the Intergenerational report. No questions about the Intergenerational report have been asked of me, perhaps because of a slight sensitivity on page 63 of the Intergenerational report, where it says if we stay on Labor's fast track to doing nothing, the percentage of GDP on health spending will almost double to seven per cent, and 'Medicare … is projected to be the fastest growing component of health expenditure.' How much more evidence do you need to see that the coalition's determination to keep Medicare sustainable over the long term is actually the right one. Technology 58 14:57 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Communications. Will the minister update the House on the steps the government is taking to ensure Australia has the strong and viable communications it needs to take advantage of the opportunities the future will present? 14:57 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The Intergenerational report, through every page, cries out for innovation, for science, for technology and for productivity. The reality is, if we are to win the opportunities that the future offers us and seize the future in the optimistic way the Treasurer has described—as the government describes—then we need to be able to embrace the future. We need to be able to embrace volatility. Volatility has to be our friend not our enemy. The future is not something we proof ourselves against. It is something we embrace. To do that, we need to be nimble; we need to be agile. We must never approach problems in a rigid, ideological way harking back to the past. The NBN is a classic example. We have been focused from the outset on what the customer needs. What does the customer need? Very good broadband. What technology should be used? Whatever technology is most cost-effective at the time— Ms Ryan interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Lalor will desist. Mr TURNBULL 885 And what that is today may be different tomorrow—whereas the Labor Party was driven by ideology into locking itself into one slow and expensive platform. Take Australia Post. Obviously people are sending fewer letters. Clearly the letters business is getting further and further into the red. What did we do? We did not throw up our hands and say: 'Oh, that is a dreadful thing!' We exposed the problem carefully, we analysed it and we are taking steps to ensure that Australia Post and its 32,000 employees will have a prosperous future well down the track—again, by being agile. If you look at mobile communications in the bush—the smart phone. Our smart phones are almost part of us. They have become our single most important point of communication. But in the bush there are many blackspots. For six years the Labor Party was in government and they did nothing. We the coalition once again are spending $100 million to remedy those blackspots, and no doubt we will spend more in the future. Leadership today, whether it is in business or whether it is in government, requires the attitude that the coalition has—an attitude of innovation, progress, embracing technology and volatility, making it your friend, embracing the future, not running away from it, which is the mark of the Labor Party. Health Care 59 15:00 Ms KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Minister for Health. Can the minister please explain to the House how direct billing would work? 15:01 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer The shadow minister has been the shadow minister for how long? And she does not understand some of the basic concepts that have been around in health policy for how long? But I would be delighted to arrange a private briefing for the member for Ballarat— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Isaacs will desist or leave! Ms LEY 00AMN because I do not want to embarrass her here on the floor of the parliament. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 I know it is Thursday afternoon, and the anxiousness to get an early mark is becoming more and more apparent—even if it is on a bus. We will have some silence for questions and answers for the remainder of the time or there will be lots of people queuing for the bus. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 And that includes the member for Sydney. Ms LEY 00AMN The opposition will ask a question but they will not always listen to the answer, which is unfortunate. There is no doubt that direct billing is a policy idea. As I said, there are many policy ideas that have come to the coalition. If the member for Ballarat is so bereft of policy ideas that she has to ask us, that is an interesting point in itself. Ms Kate Ellis interjecting— Ms Owens interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Adelaide will desist and the member for Parramatta has been warned. Ms LEY 00AMN As I said, explanations can be arranged via the coalition or the Parliamentary Library. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The Minister for Health has the call and there will be silence for the answer. Ms LEY 00AMN Many ideas about future policies in health have come to the coalition during the course of my consultations, and direct billing has been one of them. Direct billing looks different in different circumstances. It is a policy idea that, as I said, has been around for a long time. It is one of many ideas that have come to me from across the country. I make absolutely no apology for considering every idea that comes across my desk and listening to everything that is presented or for looking at the context in which we as a parliament should all try to make Medicare sustainable. At the moment, the opposition have no ideas in this space. They are a policy-free zone. When I go back and look to see what ideas they might have had in the past all I can come up with is something that the member for Ballarat should be familiar with, which is the super epic GP superclinics fail which was investigated by the Auditor-General, a body with which the member for Ballarat should be eminently familiar. It made some very clear points about Labor policy failures in the past, so do not criticise us about constructive policy formation. Agriculture 59 15:05 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the minister update the House on how the government is supporting growth for the future through its plans for a profitable and strong agricultural sector? 15:05 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member is from the seat of Parkes, so if anybody knows anything about agriculture he does. He initially comes from 'Avondale'—that was the name of the family property. A fundamental part of what our Intergenerational report is about is making sure we have a future in agriculture. There is no better way to talk about how things are going than to put numbers to it. Everything this government has done has been about making sure we get a better return through the farm gate, that we get real dignity back to the people on the land, that we give them something they can use to make sure that they can experience a comparable standard of living to people in an urban environment. That is why through this government young cattle have gone up by 38 per cent. Grown steers have gone up by 14 per cent. We have seen that live cattle exports have gone up. Live cattle exports through Darwin have gone up in our term of government by 67 per cent. If you go to other sidelines, such as buffalo, you will see that they have gone up by 54 per cent. Camels, which we are always trying to export because they are a pest in Australia, have gone up 245 per cent. Lamb has gone up by 28 per cent. Mutton has gone up by 67 per cent. Goat has gone up by 87 per cent. Even pork has gone up. Everything that we have tried to do is to make sure that we get a better return. When we go to horticultural products, avocados have gone up by 43 per cent and bananas have gone up by 123 per cent. It is all part of an effective government. These are the numbers that put flesh on the bone about an effective government. It is not just what we are doing; it is what we are going to do. We have started the process of building dams already. I know that the members for Braddon, Bass and Lyons are very aware of the dams that we are building in Tasmania now—$120 million investment in dams. We could go to the electorate of Mallee and see that $120 million has been spent in the upgrade of lift pumps that were part of the previous government's $10 billion announcement in the Murray-Darling Basin. We are moving right now on country-of-origin labelling, and we have 25,000 emails in our inbox that reflect that we are moving on country-of-origin labelling, and the previous government never did anything about country-of-origin labelling. We are the government that actually delivers. If it is about drought, we are delivering on drought. We are making sure that we respect people who are under the pump. What is the alternative? The alternative is the member for Hunter, who says that he will have a debate any place and any time. And when you give him the place and the time, he never turns up, because he has nothing to say. Community Services 60 15:09 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister stated that all community organisations 'have had their funding confirmed for the rest of this financial year'. But the Narara Community Centre have been told by the Department of Social Services that they will not receive funding after 31 March. Will the Prime Minister admit that he was wrong and will he commit to restoring all funding to Narara, which provides meals to the homeless on the New South Wales Central Coast? 15:09 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I have been advised that Narara neighbourhood centre actually trades under the Gosford City Community and Information Service Ltd, and it is receiving funding for emergency relief services. This particular organisation—referred to as one but in fact the other—has been given bridging funding until 31 March. I know that the member for Robertson has been a very strong advocate for this particular service. The Minister for Social Services has invited all members to raise any concerns they might have about funding with him. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If a minister has misled the parliament, they have to advise the House at the earliest opportunity. The Prime Minister had information that was inaccurate and waited until he was asked a question before he let on to the rest of the House that yesterday's answer was wrong. The SPEAKER SE4 The normal time for dealing with that would be at the end of question time. We are almost at the end of question time but not quite. Mr Conroy 249127 In relation to the last question, could the Prime Minister present the document that he was reading from? The SPEAKER SE4 Is it a confidential document? Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I am happy to present it for the benefit of the member. The SPEAKER SE4 Thank you. Northern Australia 60 15:11 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's plans to develop northern Australia? How will the government deliver more investment, more infrastructure and more jobs in the North? 15:11 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. It is a good question, and it is a great passion of his, as it is of so many members on this side of the House. Northern Australia has sometimes been seen as our last frontier. I want to assure the member, and indeed our people generally, that as far as this government is concerned northern Australia is our next frontier. Northern Australia is a land of opportunity—a land of much more opportunity now than just a few years ago. As I was able to inform the House just a few days ago, I was in the Northern Territory to open a new meat processing facility thanks to a $100 million-plus investment by the Australian Agricultural Company. This will create 300 jobs. It will process 300,000 head of cattle. It is much beloved of the member for Solomon. This is what happens in northern Australia when you do not have a carbon tax, when you are not banning live cattle sales and when you do have the kind of free trade agreements that this government has been able to negotiate. This is a government that is committed to northern Australia and is backing up our rhetoric with actual investments. There is $3 billion that will be invested in the Bruce Highway in North Queensland; there is $300 million-plus for the Great Northern Highway; there is more than $200 million for roads and other infrastructure in Cape York; there is $170 million for the North West Coastal Highway; and there is more than $200 million for roads in the Northern Territory, including Tiger Brennan Drive. I know the member for Herbert was very happy to stand beside me when I announced that Townsville airport will soon be able to support regular international flights, and there is also the $42 million that we are giving to the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine in Townsville. I want to confirm that by mid-year the northern Australia white paper will be out. The focus is on building priority roads, developing water resources, attracting more investment and reducing red tape. I want to thank the member for Leichhardt for the work of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, and I acknowledge the new reference on aquaculture that the committee has got. I am particularly pleased that the Minister for Trade and Investment will be the coordinating minister with responsibility for the white paper's finalisation. Our responsibility in this place is to ensure that our children and our grandchildren live in a better country than we do. That is our responsibility. We should not set limits on what this country can achieve, and that means making the most of the potential of northern Australia, and that is exactly what this government will do. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 61 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 25 of 2014-15 61 15:14 The SPEAKER SE4 I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 25, 2014-15, entitled Performance audit—administration of the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement: Department of Health; Department of Human Services; Department of Veterans' Affairs. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 61 DOCUMENTS Pacific Parliamentary Partnerships 61 Presentation 61 15:15 The SPEAKER SE4 For the information of honourable members, I present the annual statement by the Presiding Officers on the Pacific Parliamentary Partnerships. DOCUMENTS 61 DOCUMENTS Presentation 61 15:15 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 61 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 61 15:15 Mr BURKE DYW Watson It is with great pleasure that I move: That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until the end of the winter period of sittings be given to the honourable Member for Adelaide, for parental leave purposes. The SPEAKER SE4 We wish her very well. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 61 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Intergenerational Report: 2015 61 15:16 The SPEAKER SE4 I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government politicising the intergenerational report to sell its unfair Budget. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:16 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon A little over five years ago, when an Intergenerational report was released, the then shadow Treasurer held a press conference and said that the report had 'more hot air than the Hindenburg'. Mr Hockey was predicting his own report five years later! In fact, he was predicting his entire tenure in the Treasury portfolio! 'More hot air than the Hindenburg': he was predicting his entire reign over the Treasury portfolio. We know that the Australian people, when they think of generational change, are very interested in one generational change; that is a change of government, and a change of government to a government which actually understands the challenges and opportunities in Australia. We know that this document, the 2015 Intergenerational report, is a gross politicisation of what should be a proper process. We know that this document is one last desperate attempt by the Treasurer to sell his unfair budget. Here we are, all those months later, when normally a government would be well into preparing the next budget—they would be well into preparing the final details of the next budget—and the Treasurer is still flailing around trying to sell the last one and abusing the Charter of Budget Honesty as he does so. He is flailing around with a new narrative every day—a new excuse, a new alibi, a new story—because he cannot sell what is a bad product, and that bad product is his handiwork. It is his federal budget. This report tells us quite a lot; it tells us a lot about this government. It tells us about their desperation. Forty-five times this document refers to 'previous policy'. What are those previous policies? They are the previous policies of this Treasurer, as outlined in his Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. He could have chosen as a starting point that Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook, signed off not by me, not by Minister Wong, but by the then secretaries of the departments of Treasury and Finance, independent of government. I read the PEFO when it was released to the public, as I should. It was an independent document, signed off by the secretaries of those two departments. Did the Treasurer use that as the starting point for his 'previous policy'? No, because that would not be politically convenient. He had to use as a starting point the mid-year economic forecast, which included his own decisions. It included his decision to give $9 billion to the Reserve Bank. It included his decision to increase spending by a $14 billion. It included his doubling of the deficit in Australia. That is the fact of the matter. That is the starting point he chose as 'previous policy'. If you are going to engage in using the Intergenerational report and the Charter of Budget Honesty to sledge a previous government, at least get your facts right. At least start with a bit of honesty; at least start with the pre-election economic forecast signed off by the departments of Treasury and Finance. As I said, this report does tells a fair bit about this government; we heard during question time. It tells us what they think about climate change. Mr Husic 91219 It's an economic benefit! It's a nirvana! Mr BOWEN DZS Apparently, greed is good, and climate change is better! The report says: Some economic effects may be beneficial—where regions become warmer or wetter this may allow for increased agricultural output … Well, that's a relief. Phew! I was worried about climate change before! I think the Minister for Agriculture has not just been changing Hansard; he has been changing the Intergenerational report as well! That is our friend the Minister for Agriculture. The report talks about the good work on climate change that happens in California. Just as well they do not have a cap-and-trade scheme! That is just as well! That would be 'an inconvenient truth'! It also tells us what the government think about productivity and innovation. The report says: There is little evidence that slower productivity growth has been the result of inadequate investment in skills, education and innovation more broadly. Well, you would not want to invest in skills, education or innovation to increase productivity! Why would you go and do that? What does innovation have to do with productivity? What a terrible thought! This report has cleared up quite a lot for me now! We know that climate change is actually good, and innovation and education—why would you invest in that?—have nothing to do with productivity! We know they are not, because we also know that education funding falls dramatically under the scenarios presented as government policy, this government's policy, as a percentage of GDP. Mr Frydenberg FKL Not true. Not true. Mr BOWEN DZS Let us talk about education funding as a percentage of GDP. I invite the member for Kooyong to comment on what this report says about education funding as a percentage of GDP. He should tell us what it says, because it is not a pretty story. We know that this government has one way of dealing with demographic change, and that is to make people work longer and to give them less in retirement. That is their only answer. But of course there are better answers than that. Thirty-two years ago today in Australia, a new government was elected: the Hawke Labor government. What a contrast: the Hawke Labor government with their Prime Minister and their Treasurer who knew that we should invest in the future, who knew how to deliver economic reform, who knew how to make the case for economic reform, who knew how to take the Australian people with them on economic reform, who did not lecture them about lifters and leaners and who said to the Australian people, 'You know what? You deserve a first-class retirement income system, and we'll give it to you. We'll give you a universal superannuation system, which means that every Australian worker should be able to save for retirement through that system.' It is a system that Labor built against the opposition of the Liberal and National parties at every stage. Let us not hear about bipartisanship from the Liberal and National parties, who opposed Medicare all the way, who opposed superannuation all the way, at every stage, and who said they would destroy Medicare. The now Prime Minister, who sat up there somewhere, presumably, as an opposition backbencher, said superannuation was the biggest con job in Australian history. Now that he is the Prime Minister of Australia he uses his office as an opportunity to wreck superannuation, to stop an increase in the superannuation guarantee, to take away a tax concession from low-income workers. And he is doing that in this week of all weeks. Let us take a moment to think about what that means. Australia's low-income workers—3.2 million Australians, two-thirds of whom are women—benefited from the low-income superannuation contribution. We know that, on average, Australian females will retire with $92,000 less in the superannuation account and we know that we should do something about it as a parliament and as a nation, because Australian women deserve better. Those Australian women working hard right across the country, many of them here in this building, in factories, schools and workplaces right across the country, deserve better in Australia than to retire with $92,000 less for their retirement. They deserve some help to save for their retirement through the low-income superannuation contribution. They deserve a bit of support from their government, not to be arrogantly lectured to about being leaners, when they are not; not to be told that they are takers and not makers, when they are not; not to be told that Australia cannot afford to keep them with a decent age pension or that they should work in the hospitals and the schools and the factories until they are 70, because they should not. They should be able to retire in dignity at a decent age, not at the highest pension age in the developed world, which is what this Treasurer, this government and this Prime Minister want to give them. And the Prime Minister lectures them about it. Disgracefully, the Prime Minister uses this document to sell his policies to make Australians work longer than anybody else in the world and to give them an inadequate pension. What a disgrace! There is a better way than that. We can use the Intergenerational report to have a proper conversation with the Australian people—that will be the Labor way. When we are in office we will keep the Intergenerational report, but it will be prepared independently of government, by the Parliamentary Budget Office, because the Australian people deserve a proper conversation. If we are in office we will not hide from scrutiny and we will not mind an independent conversation. If we do not like what the Parliamentary Budget Office does, we will not seek to drive it out of office, which is what this government does with independent statutory office holders it does not like. That is how this government treats independent scrutiny. That is how this government handles public debate. It bullies independent statutory office holders. We will have a different approach. We will have an approach that not only embraces an Intergenerational report and a proper conversation about Australia's future and opportunities but invests in the future, invests in Australian retirement incomes and uses the great strength of the Australian financial system and its financial sector to give every working Australian a decent retirement and the chance of a dignified retirement, regardless of whether they are cleaner, a carpenter, a policeman, a bricklayer or a member of parliament. Every Australian deserves to have a dignified retirement. Every Australian deserves the chance not to be entirely reliant on the full age pension. Our changes would have added $500 billion to Australia's retirement income system. Their changes take it away. As they do that, they lecture the Australian people, saying that they are not working hard enough, that they need to work longer and that their age pension is too generous. Guess what? The age pension is not too generous and Australians should not work longer than anybody else in the world, and it is only the government that thinks it. 15:26 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong What a pitiful effort from the maestro of marginal tax rates, the professor of ouzo economics. He has had a tough couple of weeks. Today's question time was his moment to shine in the sun, but did he ask one question of the Treasurer about the Intergenerational report? No. He did not ask one question. After a couple of tough weeks he missed his big chance in the sun. We saw today in the two speeches from the member for McMahon and in question time a pitiful effort. We had B1 and B2: Bill Shorten and Adam Bandt. During question time they were asking questions about climate change, but the report says two particular things about this government's approach to climate change. No. 1, we will meet our Kyoto targets. That is what it says. No. 2, we have an emissions reduction fund which is actually investing in the type of technology to reduce emissions. What else happened in question time today? The Leader of the Opposition started talking about retirement incomes and the pension. We know that the pension is going up under this government. We know also that the Leader of the Opposition had his own retirement plan for two of his fellow leaders. He was trying to put them into retirement. He had his own retirement plan, and it worked. What else did we hear from the member for McMahon. We heard that education spending is going down under this government. In fact, it is going up, and if you look at the IGR you will see a very clear table that says that education spending is going up from $1,500 per person to $1,900 per person. That is the message in the IGR. The member for McMahon had the gall to raise innovation. Why? Because those opposite actually stifled innovation and start-up companies with their change to the taxation treatment of employee share ownership schemes. It has been left to us to come up with crowdsource funding. But it was the opposition who punished employee share ownership schemes, which meant that it was more difficult for companies in Australia to attract the best and the brightest. Earlier today, the member for McMahon raised the advertising plan that goes with the Intergenerational report. The hide of those opposite! The member for McMahon spent nearly $5 million of taxpayers' money just changing the Centrelink logo. That was his record in government. And who can forget the nearly $70 million that those opposite spent on their carbon tax plan, promoting the carbon tax initiative, including spending nearly $100,000 of taxpayers' money on three fake kitchens for their TV ads? You raised issues related to measures that will not continue in some areas. I can tell you that they are related to the mining tax, as the Prime Minister told the parliament during question time, because that was the tax that was supposed to produce $50 billion worth of revenue while introducing sovereign risk into our country but produced a little more than $300 million worth of revenue and cost $50 million to implement. Then we had the sight in question time of the member for Lilley being a martyr, refusing to apologise to the chair. Who can forget his immortal words in this place, 'The four budget surpluses that I introduce tonight'? And the message goes on. This document is a key document produced every five years with the experts in Treasury that sets out 40-year projections. It helps frame the economic narrative of the government and helps inform the economic decisions that we will take. As the Treasurer has said, it is a compact between this generation and the next. What are its key facets? Its key points relate to the three P's: participation, population and productivity. Dealing with population first, it is very clear that we have an ageing boom. Where today there might be 4,000 Australians who are over the age of 100, that will increase to 40,000 by 2055. If you look at the ratio of those under 65 to those over 65, in 1970 it was 7.5, today it is 4.5, and it will fall to just 2.7 in 2055. That is a key demographic change for us to understand. Then it is about participation. This is the 'grey army' who in increasing numbers are entering our workforce. It is about getting more women into the workforce. It is a $25 billion dividend to the Australian economy if we can lift the rate of female participation in this country to where it is in Canada, which is six points ahead of where we are in Australia today. What about productivity? In the 1980s, productivity was about 1.3 per cent. In the 1990s, when the country undertook some significant economic reform, it was 2.2 per cent. In the 2000s, it went back to 1.5 per cent, and the projection is for it to be 1.5 per cent in the future—but, if we are going to become wealthier as a nation and our standard of living is to rise, we have to boost productivity. That is why we are cutting red tape; $2 billion worth of red tape reductions is so significant. That is why we are encouraging businesses to invest in materials for their business, to get the best equipment so that they can boost productivity. That is why we are committed to industrial relations reform—and those opposite are trying to block the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That is why those on this side of the House are committed to the greatest infrastructure spend that Australia has ever seen, with the equivalent of eight Snowy hydro schemes just in the last budget alone. That is our commitment to boosting productivity, because that is our commitment to a higher standard of living. Referring to the key pages of this document, I draw the attention of the House to page 53, which is the net debt international comparison. You have to understand that, under Labor, we were heading to a record $5.6 trillion worth of debt, or 122 per cent of GDP. Now, under us, as a result of the hard measures that we have taken—the tough, brave measures that we have taken—debt will fall as a percentage of GDP to 57.2 per cent in 2055 and $2.6 trillion. If you want to see this played out in an important graph, it is on page 53. It shows that, under those opposite, if we continued on the trajectory that Labor gave us of spend, spend, spend; tax, tax, tax—the trajectory of the Labor Party—we were nearly going to get to the levels that Greece was at by 2054-55. The member for McMahon knows this all too well, because just the other day, in his description of debt and deficit as being just rhetoric, he actually said— Mr Bowen interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Now he is denying it. He said, 'It's okay in Australia because we're not Greece.' But page 53 of this IGR says that we were heading to Greece under your leadership, under your management and under your spending program. When the member for McMahon is on a beach on the corner of the Aegean, flipping through his treatise on ouzo economics and he turns to page 53 of his treatise on ouzo economics, he might just find that chart, which says Australia was heading towards the debt levels of Greece. I want to finish on a positive note. Under this government, the last budget was the heavy lifting that this country needs and it is setting us on the right trajectory. Now we are starting to see the green shoots in the Australian economy. There are 600 jobs being created every day, three times faster than under Labor. New private dwellings are up to record levels. Consumer confidence is moving up month after month. We are seeing more investment in infrastructure. We are seeing business registrations grow by record numbers. This is the positive story of this government. We have now created stability and certainty in our economy for innovation and entrepreneurship and for individuals to grow and to prosper. The work is not done. We have the competition policy to respond to. We have David Murray's financial systems inquiry. We have a tax white paper process. We are committed to serious reform in industrial relations. We have the federation white paper. We have the red tape reductions. As the centrepiece of our economic strategy, we have these three free trade agreements, which have set Australia up for decades to come. These are things that the Labor Party were unable to deliver. When it comes to budget repair, we have shown the ability to get things right. When it comes to those opposite, all they can do is spend, spend, spend; tax, tax, tax—lifting the rate of debt and deficit to levels Australia has never seen before. In the immortal words of Jerry Maguire: 'Show us the money.' Show us the money, because you have no road map for Australia's future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWO I remind the House yet again that members should speak through the chair, not at the chair. The use of the word 'you' is becoming a burden on my shoulders—the things I sometimes do and have responsibility for! 15:37 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser Egalitarianism is a great Australian value and over the last generation inequality in Australia has been rising. The 2010 Intergenerational report had an in-depth section on disadvantage and on the rising gap between rich and poor, but this Intergenerational report does not contain the word 'inequality.' Now why would that be? Perhaps it is because this is a government that has cut the wages of the cleaners who clean their offices while it is sending a billion dollars offshore. Since coming to office, this government has given a billion-dollar handout to multibillion dollar firms who need a tax break like Prince Phillip needs a knighthood. This is a government that likes channelling Robert Menzies to split Australia into 'leaners' and 'lifters.' In Britain the Tories are doing the same—they are talking about 'strivers' and 'skivers'. But it is all of a piece. It is the idea of 'us and them'. This is a government that wants us to be split into two Australias. This government's idea of fairness is sending the under 9s up against the Hawks. This Treasurer is a Treasurer of and for the top one per cent. The figures in table A3 of this Intergenerational report show that age and service pensions, as a share of GDP, are going to be down and that education spending will be halved. This is a government that is raising superannuation taxes on the poor and cutting superannuation taxes on the rich. This government is so unfair that the Sheriff of Nottingham would be voting Palmer in the Senate. These are insecure times and Australia needs a Treasurer who will instil confidence, not the sort of Treasurer who is likely to tweet: 'Hey gang, what do you think the deficit should be before the next ERC?' This is a Treasurer who has run a million-dollar advertising campaign to sell his Intergenerational report. That is an enough to make you fall off your chair. Why has this Treasurer been late in delivering his Intergenerational report? Why has he, as the shadow Treasurer has pointed out, broken the Charter of Budget Honesty? Why is he in breach of the law? Maybe it is because he has been doing his own numbers rather than the budget numbers. Maybe he has been a little bit too busy updating his LinkedIn profile to put together the Intergenerational report. This Intergenerational report is all about the past. It is 80 pages of history and eight pages of the future. This is the kind of government who, when Adam and Eve got caught in the Garden of Eden, would be sending around talking points saying, 'You know it is Labor's fault.' They pretend that the $9 billion grant they gave to the Reserve Bank was a Labor measure rather than recognising it is a coalition measure. Seriously, Bart Simpson would be embarrassed to blame-shift like these guys blame-shift. This is a government that are seriously suggesting that climate change could improve the state of the Australian economy. They have included a section on climate change. It was included in the Intergenerational report thanks to a deal that the Greens struck in exchange for allowing unlimited debt. Those Greens know how to strike a hard bargain! This section on climate change suggests that climate change is good for growth, but that is not what every Intergenerational report has said about climate change. If you go back to 2007, an Intergenerational report when Peter Costello was Treasurer said about climate change that 'significant levels of global warming imply losses in global GDP over the longer term'. It went to how to tackle climate change and it said: While many consider climate change mitigation is best addressed through market-based mechanisms such as an emissions trading scheme, governments may alternatively elect to purchase abatement activities using budget funding. The potential cost to the budget from adopting the latter approach can rise quite significantly, imposing a substantial tax burden on today’s, and future, generations. Peter Costello had the measure of those opposite. Peter Costello never would have suggested that the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook was not the baseline. Peter Costello never would have breached the Charter of Budget Honesty. Let's be clear: I do not think Peter Costello was a great Treasurer, but I do think that he was right on the issue of climate change and he was right when he said that direction action is a bad way of tackling climate change, as it costs the budget more and it does less to tackle a critical intergenerational challenge for our nation. 15:42 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins Anybody who was wandering into the public gallery over the past little while would have been forgiven for thinking that they had wandered into the comedy hour—except that this is not a laughing matter; this is a serious issue. It would have been really nice, given that the Labor Party actually raised this issue of debating the Intergenerational report, to have actually looked at the substance contained in this very important report. Why is the Intergenerational report important? The Intergenerational report is important because it is a stocktake. It is a stocktake of where Australia is today and where Australia could be heading in the years to come. We want to engage the Australian people in a conversation about that, in a conversation about the different paths that we can take as a nation. That path discussion, the journey we will take together, will involve different choices depending on where we want to end up. A responsible government looks to build prosperity for the future. Over my lifetime I have been fortunate to live in a time where average incomes have doubled in real terms since around 1975, and I want that same positive, prosperous future for my baby. When we look at the Intergenerational report it gives us some real facts around life expectancy and demographic changes that we can expect in the years to come. When my baby is born, if it is a boy, he will live on average to 95 years of age and if my baby is a girl she will live on average to 96 years of age. This is a fantastic thing—that people in Australia have some of the greatest life expectancies in the world for both men and women and that our population is living longer and living healthier lives. But it does pose some challenges and we need to be honest about those challenges. Those challenges are that, today, there are only five people of average working age for every person aged 65 and older. For projections going forward, that will drop to 2.7 people of average working age for every person aged 65 and older. Why is that an issue? It is an issue because those people will be asked to share even more of the burden to fund the lifestyle of people in the future, when we cannot currently fund our lifestyle today. That is the most serious aspect of this Intergenerational report. Net debt to GDP is something that has been examined in the report, and we are on a trajectory of ever-increasing net debt to GDP. It is critical, because currently Australia has about 15 per cent net debt to GDP. This is about four percentage points higher than the nation of Ireland just before the global financial crisis. In six short years, Ireland's net debt to GDP skyrocketed to around 90 per cent. What were the implications of that? Their unemployment doubled. That has a serious impact on people's lives. This Labor opposition, who actually put us on the path to an ever-increasing spending trajectory that was unfunded and was not able to be managed, except by ever-increasing debt or by increasing taxes, needs to come to a reckoning. That reckoning is the reckoning that is in the Intergenerational report. We can choose to continue along that path and we will see net debt to GDP in 2054 of about 122 per cent. That is double that of Spain today. That is not a record we want to hit. So we have real choices, and those choices are before us. That is why we want to engage in a public conversation with the Australian population. We want a strong and prosperous future, and I can only hope that those opposite want the same. 15:47 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley What is incredible about this debate and the way the government have gone on today is this: they are trying to turn the well-known into the exceptional, the extraordinary. All of a sudden we have discovered that Australia is ageing. Apparently this was not known. Up until today we did not know that people were living longer. In recent times, every single generation has lived longer than the last. In fact, it was commented on in the first Intergenerational report. Everyone knew it. Everyone knew, for example, that the number of taxpayers that would support those that had retired was decreasing, that there would be fewer of them. We then say, 'If they have just discovered this, let us look at what they did in the months preceding the Intergenerational report .' Given how long it has taken, I was thinking that we would have to wait another generation to get this report. But we finally got it, five years late. It should have been delivered much earlier. It should have been delivered earlier in the year. In fact, they promised they would deliver it last year and they did not. When they bring it down, they say, 'We need to think about the future of the country and what people are doing.' What decision did they make, for example, on pensions? They realised people are going to be living longer, they realised that there will be more of them, and what did they do? In their first budget they cut pensions. They cut the income that people will be relying upon. If you say, 'In actual fact, we do not want people relying on pensions,' what is the next policy lever that you pull? Ms Claydon 248181 Super. Mr HUSIC 91219 Superannuation. So what did they do? They had a chance on superannuation to support what we were doing, to ensure that people have retirement— Mr Taylor 231027 Where's the money coming from? Show us the money tree! Mr HUSIC 91219 There you go: 'Where is the money coming from?' That is exactly it. That was the argument when we introduced superannuation. Those opposite say: 'We were always there for economic reform. We worked with the Hawke and Keating governments.' Way back when, to oppose superannuation, they used the argument that the member for Hume uses. When we were arguing that instead of having pensions to rely upon for retirement incomes we would have a pool of national savings that would be good for the economy and would generate income for people in retirement, they opposed it. They opposed superannuation, they cut pensions and they made sure that, when people retire, they have less to live on. That is what the argument was. They cut superannuation. They had a chance to fix it and they did not. Now they have again stopped the increase to superannuation; they have refused to support it. If you do not have super and you rely on the pension, you are looking at a cut. If you have super and you want to ensure that you have a good retirement income, that is cut. And what is the other prescription? All those people sitting on the backbench argue that we have to cut penalty rates and that we have to see lower wages. Wages are at their lowest growth level since the RBA started collecting the stats, and those opposite are going around arguing for a cut in penalty rates. Mrs Sudmalis 241586 Fairytales! Mr HUSIC 91219 It is not fairytales. Go and look at the stats, Member for Gilmore. I know they have cut the education funds, but you would expect that you guys could read. You would expect you guys would know. As the Prime Minister apparently said today, fact is fact—breaking news! It is a joke that we have this mob now saying that they want to have this Intergenerational report to fix all these things when they are wrecking it on the way through. I cannot believe, for example, the member for Kooyong is proving that you can disagree on absolutely everything but still be friends. I do not know how we do it. Mr Conroy 249127 You're a generous man, Ed. Mr HUSIC 91219 I am a generous man; thank you for that, Member for Charlton. This Intergenerational report took its time to get here. They need consultants to work out how to sell it. You spent $400,000. You outsourced your political skill. You have no political skill in selling your budget, so you had to bring people in to sell this. An honourable member: And how's it going? Mr HUSIC 91219 Exactly, and that is going sensationally! It would be interesting to see whether this is actual fact, and it ain't. When they talk about debt going out in 50 years, they do not talk about the decisions they made to load up debt, the fact that straight after PEFO they brought out MYEFO and they doubled the debt; they handed $9 billion to the Reserve Bank and made cuts. Talking of leaners and lifters, they leaned on low-income earners and took their superannuation away so that they could lift off the tax required out of wealthy superannuants. This is a shameful document. It is a shameful document because it has been abused. It should be a good policy document. It has been abused by those opposite. 15:52 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey What an extraordinary MPI this is. All year, the shadow Treasurer has been demanding the release of the Intergenerational report. In question time, he asked not one question of the Treasurer, and his entire contribution of 10 minutes avoided the very topic. He just pulled out his talking points. He was exceeded only by the member for Fraser, who dusted off all his silly jokes that we have all heard before, and dusted off his inequality book, and in he came. And who is the shadow Assistant Treasurer? Then we have the member for Chifley. He is actually a little bit smarter than them both. The member for Kooyong would agree with this. He thought, 'I haven't got time to read it, but I'll put a few sticky tabs inside the book. I'm not sure what pages they are on.' All three of them refused to deal— Opposition members interjecting — Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Oh, they are going to come home strong. It was only publically released at midday, so maybe the last speaker on the Labor side will have had time to actually read it and talk on the topic of our demographic destiny, and, under you, what was our massive debt destiny. That is the other word you did not hear from any of them: debt. Ms MacTiernan interjecting— Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Let's go through some of Labor's history, and for the member interjecting over there this will be a revelation, because you have been to reprogramming school. Let's take you through what actually happened. Let's go back to 2011, when Labor decided to put Australia into massive debt. In 2011 we had $45 billion in the bank, and Labor decided to ram us into massive debt and deficit. Back then, four years ago, the now Leader of the Opposition had this to say in the parliament: 'At the peak, under Labor's economic stewardship, which is represented in its flagship, the budget, net debt will be 7.2 per cent of GDP.' Today it is double that, because from 2011 they ran deficit after deficit. As the member for Higgins pointed out, today it is 15 per cent of GDP. As the member for Higgins and the member for Kooyong pointed out, we have had a debt destiny under Labor. What the Intergenerational report, a Treasury document, points out is where we were going, where we are now heading and where we can be if we take responsible decisions. If we had done as those opposite suggested, and done nothing, as the documents point out we would have reached 122 per cent of GDP in 2054-55. Under decisions already legislated, net debt is projected to reach 57.2 per cent of GDP. If we had done nothing, as the member for Kooyong rightly pointed out, we would be right up there heading towards Greece. The graph on page 53, produced by the Treasury, shows just that. But for those opposite that is not a worry. In fact, the shadow Treasurer, whenever asked about debt, says our net debt is not as high as other countries. In other words, he looks to the worst not as something to avoid, but as some sort of ambitious target. For those opposite, back in 2011 7.2 per cent of GDP was not a problem. Today they are saying 15 per cent is not a problem. They have no plan for how they would bring it down. They owe the Australian people a straight answer. This is a question Labor will be asked every day in this parliament: what level of net debt does Labor think Australia should have? What should it have today? What are they comfortable with? What should it have tomorrow? What should be in the generations ahead? If we had done nothing, and we had taken your advice, the future would be the present that those European countries have today. (Time expired) 15:57 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton I wish we did not have to have this MPI, I really do. I wish that the two acolytes of Peter Costello we have just heard from honoured the memory of their departed boss by having to defend an Intergenerational report that had credibility, that acknowledged the challenges of this nation and that was not the biggest stitch up since the Fine Cotton affair, a stitch up written not by Treasury but by the Treasurer. A stitch up that shows it is just a political document, a great act of fiction. An act of fiction that is more concerned about previous policy than the future. An act of fiction that claims somehow that the 2013-14 MYEFO launched by the current Treasurer—at least for a few more days—Joe Hockey, was the policy of the previous Labor government. It is a MYEFO that loaded down government spending with a further $14 billion, including a $9 billion payment to the RBA, a payment that they did not ask for, a payment that they said they did not especially need, a payment that they have already returned $1.3 billion of back to the government this year, demonstrating that it was a political fix to load down Labor's legacy. That is what this document is. It is a document designed to attack the legacy of this side of politics, rather than a future plan for this nation—a future assessment of where we are heading. That is a great tragedy, because in this place we all profess to care about the future. We have a number of great members of parliament who are pregnant, and they have been talking about how that focuses them even more on the future. I have been lucky enough that recently my wife delivered a second child, and it does focus you on the future. It does focus you on wanting to leave this country a better place. But how can we leave this country a better placed than those on the other side, the government, still pursue this myth that somehow either climate change is not happening or, even more ridiculous and offensive, that climate change will be beneficial for this nation. That is what this document says. The climate change section of this report is an obscenity. It is an obscenity that undermines the credibility of this entire report. It is a section that endorses the direct action propaganda. It is a pay-the-polluters scheme that has been repudiated by every respectable, independent economist in this country. It is a policy costed by the Treasury at $48 billion. No economist, who is not paid by the government, goes anywhere near this document, this policy, yet they have the temerity to talk about it in this report as, somehow, a great solution for climate change. Then we have the box 1.6—I have actually read the report—on international approaches to climate change. Whoever wrote this is either blind, has a very selective reading of what is happening internationally, or is in fact the Treasurer. It does mention Fiji somewhere, so maybe he found out about it on his holiday over there. It lists nine countries and their international action. What it omits to say about these nine countries is that five of the nine have emissions trading schemes in place, which every reputable economist says is the right way to tackle climate change. The truth is that by next year three billion people in this world will live in countries or provinces governed by emissions trading schemes. The government are rejecting that and their document is full of propaganda that betrays the lightweight nature of this document. To suggest that somehow climate change will be beneficial repudiates all the scientific analysis that is done in this country and around the world. Let me quote from an Australian government report of the impact if climate change is left unchecked: 'A 92 per cent reduction in agricultural production in the Murray Darling Irrigation Area. The destruction of the $9 billion Great Barrier Reef tourism. Wine making becoming more and more difficult,' and that is already impacting in my region in the Hunter, and 'more than a doubling of temperature related deaths.' That is the cost of not taking climate change seriously. Let me repeat that: if climate change is left unchecked, as is the policy of those opposite, if we do nothing about it or have a fig leaf of a policy, which is their policy, as the member for Wentworth attested to, we will see a more than doubling of climate change related deaths in this country. That is really what this report should be concentrating on. That is really what intergenerational equity should be about. It is about leaving this country in a better place for our children and our grandchildren, and that is not what this report is about. This report is about this government surviving to next week and next month, and it should be condemned for the political fix that it is. 16:02 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume When I first came to this place I hoped, perhaps naively, that on issues that would affect the future of my children and, in time, perhaps my grandchildren, there would be at least an attempt at some level of bipartisanship. The extraordinary disappointment for me has been that there has not even been an attempt in this case. In what is one of the most important pieces of work that our public servants, our independent public servants, do, there has been no attempt by the other side at any level of bipartisanship before they have even read the report. So, it is time to actually look at the Australia we are going to leave our children and grandchildren if we continue with the policies that we inherited. That is the starting point. You cannot think about the future without understanding the starting point. Let us look at a few of the facts. Australian government spending, as it was, was on its way to 37 per cent of GDP. Almost 40 per cent of the economy was federal government spending. That is great if you are a socialist, because you have taken it from 22 per cent to 37 per cent, and no doubt in time you are on your way to 100 per cent. We as a government have already got that down to 30 per cent. You have to ask yourself: what was it about Labor policies that were pushing that number up to 37 per cent, and the answer is very simple. They allowed spending growth to be faster than GDP. It is that simple. If you do that, then away it goes, away it rips. When we look at net debt it was $6 trillion and 122 per cent of GDP. As we heard earlier from the member for Kooyong, this is an extraordinary number compared to other countries in the world. In fact Austria, which has not been one of the world's best on this front, is at 53 per cent at the moment. Canada is at only 35 per cent. New Zealand is at 26 per cent. The UK, which has been a real problem area, is at 82 per cent. The US is at 87 per cent. But, of course, we were on our way towards Greece at 155 per cent and Ireland at 102 per cent. That is where the Labor policies were taking us, because they could not contain spending growth, because they were locking in spending growth greater than GDP. When we look at deficits they were taking us to 12 per cent of GDP. That is over $600 billion a year. Let us do a few more comparisons. I looked at the 2015 forecast and the 2014 actuals. The interesting thing about that is that I could not find a deficit in the OECD that got to 12 per cent of GDP. There was not one there. In fact I had to go back in history to 2009 to find some deficits that approached 12 per cent of GDP. I managed to find Greece at 15.6 per cent, Portugal at 10 per cent, Spain at 11 per cent and the United States at 12 per cent. We would be as bad as the worst countries during the GFC on the policies that Labor left us. I thought it would be an interesting exercise to have a look at how you might fix this problem. My starting point, of course, was to look for the money tree. I could not find the money tree in Hotham. I had a look at Newcastle, and Scullin, and Wakefield, and McMahon, and then I thought: I know where the money tree is. The money tree must be in Lilley because the member for Lilley promised us three surpluses, which he never delivered. Then I suddenly realised where the money tree was. The money tree was the next generation of Australians. In fact I did some very simple calculations of how much tax the next generation of Australians would be paying to pay for these deficits, and that was very interesting. Let us put this in perspective. The GST today generates 3.6 per cent. If we quadrupled the GST, the 40 per cent GST rate would be Labor's money tree. The personal income tax generates 11½ per cent. If we double the personal income tax rate that would be the money tree. It is clear that Labor's policies were to tax more, to take us down the path of debt and deficit and to leave extraordinary liabilities for the next generation of Australians. 16:07 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham One of the core beliefs that I had before coming into this parliament is that politics should be more focused on long-term issues. As a member of parliament, I have a much better understanding of why it is that we seem to get caught up in the politics of the day. As backbench members of parliament, we often have tasks that could fill two days for every day we work, and I know that ministers could have weeks of time for the work that has to be done in one day. So I do understand that in this environment sometimes long-term issues can get brushed away as the day-to-day things come into play. So I am very interested in ways that we can try to shape the political process to change this, because it is obviously not in the best interests of the country. That is why, despite the Charter of Budget Honesty being introduced by a coalition government, there are a lot of things about this piece of legislation that I respect and admire, and I think it has been good for the democratic process. The Intergenerational reportis one of the core things that I think is fantastic for the nation. What could be better than to have a fact based discussion about where this country is going? It is with very genuine disappointment that I stand today to condemn the way that this government has politicised the Intergenerational report, taking away from all of us the opportunity to have a fact based and values based discussion about what we should be doing in Australia to deal with creating a better future for our children. We know that this document has been heavily politicised, because Treasury has told us that. We had the Prime Minister claiming in question time this week that the Intergenerational report was prepared by experts at the Treasury. The Treasurer has also recently claimed that the Intergenerational report was 'independent analysis', and yet what we found in estimates was that, when these claims were put to the Treasury Secretary, he said, 'This is a document of the Treasurer.' Again, he said, 'All of the key elements in the Intergenerational report are ultimately matters for the Treasurer.' This is very disappointing. The Senate estimates questions followed reports that were widely in the press about the Treasurer and how he was trying to lean on the department to change the net migration figures of Australia so that the fiscal position under one of the policy settings that he examined would look worse than they would otherwise. How can we expect the Australian people to join us in a discussion when we have the Treasurer trying to fiddle the figures to justify a set of policy settings that he wants to put in place? There is no better illustration of the politicisation of this document than the way that climate change is managed in the Intergenerational report. We know that this government has some difficult constituencies to manage, but it should try to be honest. If it were being honest, this report would say, frankly, that the biggest long-term economic threat for Australia is climate change. Think about the shape of our economy. Agriculture, mining, tourism—all of these are fundamentally threatened by what could be radical changes in our climate over the next 50 and then 100 years. That is not even starting to mention the natural disasters, the increased fire risk, and the increased and very expensive heatwaves that we are going to need to manage. This could change our way of life. And yet the IGR is pretty tepid on it. There are some things. Sure, there might be some costs, but it also points to the great benefits that we might have. Surprise, surprise—after all this, it gives a ringing endorsement of Direct Action, policy that we know that no serious economist and no serious climate scientist in this country will stand behind. Then there is the excessive and somewhat sad focus on Labor in this report. This is a government that is so bereft of vision that it spends the majority of the report talking about what it asserts Labor would do were it in government today. I say to you on the other side of the House: 'Get with the program. You are the government. We are the opposition. You are meant to be producing the documents of vision, ideas and leadership for where this country should be heading. Instead, you are obsessing about what you think we might have done were we in government. What a missed opportunity. It is absolutely depressing to me. I say to you as I have said many times in the House: this is not about any sense of vision or sense of the future; this is about justifying the toxic budget that has been so profoundly rejected by the Australian people. We have heard various mea culpas from different people in the government that this was really about a sales job. We know the Intergenerational report has been politicised to help that sales job. I would say to you on the other side of the House that what you need to recognise is that that budget failed not because it was a bad sales job but because it was bad policy. You decried a budget emergency, then you got rid of taxes on major polluters and mining companies and tried to cut pensions for Australians. We will not have it. (Time expired) 16:12 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page When you think the Labor Party can only go so low, they go lower. They have not got up to discuss the policy issues in relation to the Intergenerational report. They have attacked the report itself—the report produced independently by Treasury. No, they do not want to debate the ideas that we need to discuss as a government, as a country, in this report; they attack the independent people who write the report. It is a disgrace. This report, as it should, is talking about a word that a lot of other people will talk about at other times in relation to other things, and that is sustainability. That is all this report wants to discuss. It is laying down the scene of where we are at and where we are projected to go, and from that we need to have a discussion, as we should, and that discussion should be debated, but not the report itself. It is a disgrace that it has only just come out and, without even reading it properly, they are doing that. When we talk about sustainability, what do we mean? We all want to, in every facet of our life, leave things in a better shape than we found them. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I know that you have a property. I have quite a modest property. I do weed control on it, I look after the creek, I have revegetated the creek. I have put in water troughs so that my cattle do not go to the creek. As you would know, they walk through a creek to go to a water trough, so if you have water troughs you can protect your creek so that they do not do that. Why do we do that? I do that because I want to leave my property in better shape than when I got it. I look at my family. I had wonderful parents and I am, as a parent, trying to be a great parent because I want my each of my children—and I am sure they will be, which is probably more of a credit to my wife than I—to be a better person than I am. That is what I want to contribute in the sense that my property will be a better property and my children will be better people. That is because we are into sustainability. What is this Intergenerational report about? It is about economic sustainability. With what we are doing here, we can imagine ourselves as a family. Let's do that: we are a family with a family budget. What would this family be discussing right now? This family would be saying, 'Right, six years ago we had a certain amount of income and no debt. Six years on, we have more income. We are actually earning lots more money than we were six years ago, but we have been spending more money every year for six years and we have racked up a debt.' Income can go up or down; it is a thing that is sometimes outside your control as a family, as it can be for a country. We should be looking at this as if we are a family. Six years ago, we had no debt. We now have a lot. There are risks on the horizon, as this Intergenerational report talks about. We need to have a discussion about what, as a family, we are going to do. Are we going to keep on spending more money every year? How secure is our income when some of those things are out of our control? That is what this would be about. As a family, we would also be saying, unfortunately, that over that six years as a family we have not bought necessarily any assets that are going to produce as money or we have not bought anything that is going to produce us income. We have just increased our recurrent expenditure. We have not actually spent this money or run up this debt on anything that is going to generate us money. What should this family do? What should we as a country do? Are we going to keep spending? Obviously, some countries and some families do. It has been mentioned before in this MPI that countries like Greece have done that. What happens then? The people that owe you the money and the bankers then become your controllers. We as a country certainty do not ever want to get into this. I have read this report. I think it is very well produced. I acknowledge Treasury for producing this report. I think there is a lot in this for us to acknowledge. As we well know, from the debt that we have run up, we have $1 billion in interest that we pay every month to cover this debt. We are spending $100 million a day more than we get in. It is an issue that we need to address. Again, I say that the attack on this report is outrageous. Popularist politics might feel good in the short term, but it gives the country a long-term headache. (Time expired) BILLS 71 BILLS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2014, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Designated Coastal Waters) Bill 2014 71

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2014

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Designated Coastal Waters) Bill 2014

Returned from Senate 71 Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014 71

Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014

First Reading 71 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2014-2015, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015 72

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2014-2015

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015

Second Reading 72 16:19 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I am on a hat-trick. I have come back three times to resume my remarks. The member for Tangney will not have to put up with that. I was commenting earlier on the mess this budget has found itself in and the way that the government has been impacted on as a result. In all the trouble that they experience in recent times, you may recall that the coalition said, 'We need to change our ways; we need to bring the public with us more.' They have been saying it quite a lot now. I need to have a clicker to actually count the number of times they have said it. They said, 'We need to bring the public with us, we need to explain our reforms better and we need to be more bipartisan.' This is what I was hearing. Hearing them is bipartisan is truly a revelation and makes one stop mid thought. Then you actually match the word against deed. There was speaker after speaker on their side. I actually remember an extraordinary contribution by the member for Banks, who spent his entire speech talking about what happened in the past and attacking Labor. These were the people that said they would look to the future, they would have argument to sustain the reform process and they would want to be bipartisan; but, given the inability to sell this budget, they dedicate their time to continually attacking Labor. Some way to get bipartisanship! When you then go further and when you press them on this, the response that we are getting more and more these days from those opposite is, 'What's your plan?' This government that has found itself, as a result of its first budget, in such a mess has been breaking records: the first record is that they have the worst level of support of a first-term government that has been experienced in modern history, the second record is that it has been one of the fastest times in which there has been an attempt to get rid of the Prime Minister and the third record is that they are attempting to break is to get an opposition before we even get the halfway point to actually handover policy. When the coalition was in opposition, they had the answers for everything. They had the answers; they had the policies. Actually, as I said earlier, they made promises in opposition and broke them in opposition before they even got to government. They promised a surplus. They then broke that promise and said they could not do it. Then they have gotten into government said, 'We can wait for ages.' But they want us to come up with the ideas to get them out of their mess. They create the quicksand and start sinking in it, and they want us to throw them the rope through the ideas that they expect us to develop. I do not think it is the time for us. It is not right. It is time for those opposite—they told us before that they knew all the answers and they had the policies there—not the opposition to frame a budget fairly—they are in government—and to do the things that are required—as we knew. When we said we had a revenue problem, those opposite said: 'No, this is a revenue forecasting problem.' Now, all of a sudden, the Treasurer is pointing to the fact that commodity prices are a problem, and terms of trade are a problem. These are all things that we knew. These were not forecasting problems. This was reality. This was not a forecast. This was actually the present. Those opposite continued to say that these were not problems back when they were in opposition. They said they would fix them up, that there would be a surge of confidence when they got elected, and that everything would sort itself out. Now they are in a morass, and they want us to fix that up for them by giving them ideas. This is not about them fixing ideas. This is not a genuine request to be bipartisan. All they want, when you look at their form, is to be able to attack. All they want do is be able to criticise. What they want out of the opposition is a platform to continue to attack Labor. They do not have a platform for the future or policies that can actually get them out of their own mess. What they are inviting us to do is to put forward ideas so that they can divert attention from their own problems by spending all the time in the parliament attacking Labor. This is not good government. Good government should be that you have the policies and the wherewithal to address what the nation needs to have fixed. The opposition should not be putting any policy forward. We will do it at the time that is right, and we will do it better than those opposite, who failed to deliver even on key economic policy until the final week of the election campaign, who have now turned their backs on PEFO, and who have now turned their backs on the Charter of Budget Honesty. We are not here to aid and abet their mission to break their promises. We will hold them to account and we will make sure that they do what they said they would. We are not going to engage in the political point-scoring that they seem obsessed with. 16:24 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 and cognate bills. There has been a public acknowledgement by the Prime Minister that our government has had a communication problem. I know that actions are more important than words and deeds more than intentions—and goal number one is fixing Labor's mess. Nonetheless, communication is important in getting people onside and for understanding the scale of the task at hand. Put simply, our country, had it been a business, was making a loss, and a substantial loss, every year since the Howard government left office. These accumulated losses have built up into a debt mountain. Unless we have a profit again, our country will never be able to reduce or pay down that debt mountain. As a Liberal, I know I can trust in the Australian people and speak up and not down to the person in the street. What the Labor party does not get is that there is wisdom in the crowd. Labor is lost in a crowd. It has its head in the clouds and is hopeless when it comes to economic management. Our mandate is to fix that mess, and I am excited about the task. I know that even though the challenges are great the opportunities are even greater. It has never been cheaper to borrow to invest. There has never been a better time to have a go, to invest, to take a risk on a dream. The coalition is building the digital and physical infrastructure of the 21st century. In my electorate, the Perth Freight Link is a hugely important project that will not only make money for the federal and state governments, but, significantly, this community-requested road will reduce air and noise pollution, decrease average journey times and reduce fatalities on Leech highway by taking large vehicles off Leech Highway altogether. This will be achieved through inventive and innovative new tracking and identification technologies. We need our fellow countrymen and countrywomen to be excited about the potential of Australia—as excited as those early settlers and as excited as the men who dreamed up the Snowy hydro scheme. As a country we need to get back to doing great and big things. Australia has always been about big things and big ideas. It is said that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste—so let's not. Now it is a time to look afresh at government support for investment in residential housing stock, through negative gearing and other tax incentives. Government monies need to be directed at sustainable investments that create long-term, local, high-value, high-skill jobs. It is reassuring to know that the coalition is the only administration capable and committed to securing Australia's high-paying, high-value-added manufacturing goods and services. The quickest, easiest and cheapest way to get the economy growing is to cut red tape. The coalition has already had two very successful red tape repeal days, throwing to the dustbin of history 50,000 pages of outdated and obsolete legislation. Egregious examples of red tape remain, and much work can and will be done. It is the job of the Prime Minister of the day to be the optimist-in-chief of the country. Australia, with our rich immigrant tapestry of the past and today, has a lot to learn from best practice elsewhere. We should not be afraid to look overseas for ideas. To be truly strong, we first must know our weaknesses. A big, bold idea such as the development of Northern Australia is one thing to do. Why not incentivise investment in science and small business, and especially small tech businesses? There is no shortage of money in Australia. The high cash savings rate of 10 per cent of weekly income is testament to this. There is no shortage of money in superannuation funds. Compulsory superannuation, itself a big idea and bold move, now encompasses billions and billions of dollars. It also has never been a better time to borrow money internationally. The real cost of borrowing is negligible to negative. We should be targeting returns of five-plus per cent. This target is very low for the normal rate of return associated with investments in research and tech spin-off companies. Indeed, five per cent is low compared with the return that the Future Fund presently enjoys of approximately 13 per cent. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 74 ADJOURNMENT Australian Human Rights Commission 74 16:30 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle It is appalling that the gravity of the Australian Human Rights Commission report into children in immigration detention has been obscured by the government's bizarre and ugly attack on the commission's president, Professor Gillian Triggs. The report, covering a period in which both Labor and the coalition were in government, details 233 assaults against children, 33 reported incidents of sexual assault and 128 children who have engaged in self-harm. Instead of engaging in the politics of personal attack, the government should be asking itself, 'How is this being allowed to happen and how can we make sure it doesn't happen again?' This report has come at a time when we are seeing the outcomes of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Only a few years ago we finally gave a formal apology to the forgotten Australians, the half a million children and child migrants who grew up in institutional or out-of-home care during the 20th century. That apology was a sombre occasion as we reflected on what had been an acute failure of government responsibility at many levels, a failure that enabled the unconscionable, painful and cruel treatment of children who, without parents, relied on government and public institutions to protect them. On that occasion, I said in parliament: There is no greater act of responsibility, there is no heavier weight of care and there is no larger placement of trust than that which exists in undertaking the care and custody of children who are without the benefit of a secure and capable and loving family. A society's capacity to look after children who find themselves in those circumstances is one of the best measures of its compassion, of its commitment to a broad safety net for the protection of the vulnerable and the disadvantaged, and of its principles of social responsibility and social justice. The forgotten children is the title of the Human Rights Commission's report, and the resonance of that terminology with the forgotten Australians is telling. The Human Rights Commission's report demonstrates unequivocally that children in our care who have come seeking refuge have instead experienced physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse in our effective custody. This tragedy, this failure of responsibility, has occurred across both the current and former governments and should certainly lead, inter alia, to a royal commission, as the Human Rights Commission has recommended. However, senior members of the government, including the Prime Minister and Attorney-General, as well as Liberal senators in Senate estimates last week, have chosen to respond by launching an offensive attack on Professor Triggs that has been widely condemned within the Australian community. The Human Rights Commission report itself is clear, and I will quote some of its simple findings: The evidence shows that immigration detention is a dangerous place for children. …   …   … Australia is unique in its treatment of asylum seeker children. No other country mandates the closed and indefinite detention of children when they arrive on our shores. And the report notes that the relevant Minister for Immigration in this government and in the former government both: … agreed on oath before the Inquiry that holding children in detention does not deter either asylum seekers or people smugglers. No rationale for the prolonged detention of children seeking asylum in Australia has been offered. On that basis, we absolutely cannot accept that violence and severe mental and emotional distress is an acceptable part of Australia's approach to asylum seekers. We must utterly reject any suggestion that assaults on children and the sexual abuse of children are to be considered in the context of reducing dangerous boat journeys or drownings at sea. It is clear the practice of offshore detention cannot be tolerated when it is manifestly failing standards of care and respect for human dignity and fundamental rights. I conclude by returning to what I said in 2009 when speaking about an earlier group of forgotten children: Today we rightly apologise, as a government and as a national parliament, for wrongs that were allowed to occur by the Australian government in previous incarnations. They may be wrongs that we, as members, do not feel personally responsible for, but I would observe that collective responsibility means nothing if the responsibility is not in some way felt by the individuals who make up that collective, from representatives to citizens. …   …   … Finally, we should perhaps reflect that Australian governments in the future may well be obliged to apologise for our errors and failures. So by taking responsibility for things that have occurred in the past, as we do today, we also have the opportunity to remember that the duty of care which was not discharged to the forgotten Australians and child migrants is the same duty of care that we must remain ever vigilant to uphold. Well, that future is now. None of us who recognise the importance of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and none of us who supported the government's long overdue apology to the forgotten Australians, should stand by while the Australian government, in our name, in the name of all Australians, operates a system that is producing lasting harm to children and adults in our care. It has to stop. Education 75 16:35 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack Rural and regional families want the best for their children. They are no different to their city cousins in that way. But government policies, state and federal, often lead to unexpected or inequitable outcomes. Grade 7 students in Western Australia now commencing high school provide a good example of this. Kids destined for boarding school are now leaving home 12 months earlier. As a consequence, the family incurs the costs of boarding school 12 months earlier, meaning an extra year of fees for the family budget. I know boarding school education is not mandatory but often it is the only option for regional families. Many of my constituent families are in this position in the seat of Durack, which covers some 1.6 million square kilometres. They are sparsely located. I sincerely hope that this change with grade 7 students commencing high school a year earlier will bring about better educational outcomes, because in the meantime regional families will feel a pull not only on the purse strings but also on the heartstrings. I will turn now to tertiary education. I refer to the Review of regional loadings: final report, published by the Commonwealth, which found, unsurprisingly, that regional higher education differs from metropolitan areas in the following noteworthy ways: higher education participation rates are lower in regional areas regional secondary-school completers are much less likely to plan to undertake higher education potential students face greater disincentives to study because of costs and distance to campuses higher deferral rates students are more likely to be from a low socio-economic status background students are predominantly from regional areas students are more likely to be female, older and care for dependents (and thus less able to move to study) Higher education participation rates amongst 15- to 24-year-olds in Western Australia are significantly lower in regional areas—some 5.3 per cent—compared to Perth and Peel at 11.8 per cent. So we can see that this is a big issue in Durack. It is what I think of as the big divide—and it is shameful. In Western Australia we do not have regional universities, unlike the Northern Territory and Queensland, although there are very good TAFEs in my electorate of Durack. The Kimberley Training Institute, which has a campus in Broome and other parts of the electorate, is noteworthy. The popular Geraldton University Centre is effectively a cooperative of universities providing courses in the Mid West. But, as an aside, disappointingly, there are no West Australian universities providing education services at that particular university. However, I do acknowledge that Curtin University and the University of Western Australia have both had an involvement in the past, and UWA still contributes at a governance level. The University of Notre Dame has a campus in Broome, which is in the process of scaling back its degree offerings and instead providing more vocational education and training courses. I have not given up hope that one day we will see, at the very least, an offering of maybe first-year courses in the Pilbara, which is crying out for this in this part of Durack. I will continue to prosecute the case, with the help of those passionate educators in Port Hedland, including businesswoman Jan Ford of Port Hedland. One of the consequences of the proposed federal education reforms will see universities with more money that they will be able to offer as scholarships to kids in the bush. Of course, that is to be welcomed. It is anticipated that these scholarships will extend to cover the cost of accommodation and education. But, for those regional students who miss out on a scholarship, the decision to go to university is often based on the health of the family finances. For young people in the city, this is less often a consideration, especially if they continue to live in the family home. For those who qualify—and I acknowledge that it is very complex—youth allowance provides some financial relief while studying. There are other amounts available for, say, travel costs to the city, but these are only small offerings and really pale into insignificance with respect to the cost of getting an education. I am of the view that the federal government must ensure that all young people in Australia, especially those from the bush, have access to some financial assistance that will help with the cost of their education. I believe that that is only just. As part of a group of regional MPs, I have been lobbying the Minister for Education and the Minister for Social Services to bring about such a change. The group met this week with the ministers to continue to put the case. I am pleased that they have listened and will take action to investigate this inequitable state of affairs. I am determined that rural and regional young people, particularly those in Durack, enjoy the same educational opportunities as urban students—nothing more and nothing less. In a modern country like Australia, I do not think that that is asking for too much. Libya: Terrorist Attack 76 16:40 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt On Saturday, 21 February 2015, I was honoured to attend a requiem mass conducted by His Grace Bishop Suriel and Father Abanoub Attalla at the beautiful St Mina and St Marina Coptic Church in Hallam. I, along with the Consul-General of Egypt, leaders within the Coptic community, such as City of Casey Councillor Sam Aziz, many hundreds of local members of the Coptic community and other faith leaders stood and prayed together in solidarity and resolve to condemn the despicable and cowardly mass murder and beheadings of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya, after a video was released on 15 February by ISIL-affiliated terrorists. I wish to offer, on behalf of the Australian parliament, my deepest condolences to the families of the victims. I also want to specifically reassure the local Coptic community that this act of barbarism has been unequivocally condemned by the Australian government and the federal opposition. ISIL or Daesh's barbarity, as we know, knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect or ethnicity. This killing of 21 innocents is just the most recent of many vicious acts perpetrated by ISIL-affiliated terrorists against the people of the region, including the murders of dozens of Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai. Most of the Egyptian Coptic Christians, however, who were murdered hailed from poor villages and went to Libya to work as labourers to send money to families back at home. They died a gruesome death in horrific circumstances at the hands of murderers who filmed this in order to humiliate and remove any vestige of humanity from these 21 victims at the moments of their deaths. But what these murderers have done is strengthen our resolve. On Saturday, 21 February 2015 we came together with our Coptic brothers and sisters and resolved to stand firm collectively against this suicide cult. The perpetrators of these evil acts must know that they have merely strengthened our resolve to ensure that their suicide cult is destroyed—destroyed through military means, economic means, ideological means and religious means, but they will be destroyed. Those who perpetrated this heinous mass murder must know this: the world community will not rest until you are brought to justice and to account. You will be found and, when you are found, you will meet justice. This most recent act of barbarism against the Egyptian Coptic Christians has had a profound effect on that community. I have at a local level 2,000 Copts from about 600 families, and many of those attended the mass last month. After the mass, members of the Coptic community conveyed their concerns about the ongoing persecution of Egyptian Coptic Christians. One of the things that struck me most in the course of the service was the incredible discipline and restraint particularly preached by His Grace Bishop Suriel, a man who is well known to politicians in Canberra as a great and powerful voice for the Coptic community in this country. In his sermon and in his service, he spoke about forgiveness and the fact that he would look at this murderous act with love and forgiveness. I said at that service and I say now that I will leave that act of forgiveness to great men of God like Bishop Suriel; but our job as legislators is to ensure at a secular level that we wipe the scourge of ISIL, or Daesh, off the face of the earth. I commend the Prime Minister for the actions he has taken on behalf of the Australian people and the Australian parliament in dealing with this menace. Be under no misapprehension: I have followed the debate about whether or not this cult is relevant to this country. You would know, Madam Speaker, that we had a terrorist event occur in my electorate. A young man attacked two police officers; and, without their heroism and bravery, there would have been many more casualties. They dealt with that act of terrorism, which was ISIL inspired. We see terrorist acts ranging from the absolutely atrocious mass beheadings in Libya to those on our shores, and that threat will continue. But I want to reassure the Coptic community that, here today and in the future, we stand with you. We will not allow you to be persecuted. This act of barbarism, this mass murder, has strengthened our resolve to deal with this death cult once and for all. Indigenous Affairs: Care Arrangements for Indigenous Children 76 16:45 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I spend much of my time as the member for Grey being concerned about and involved in trying to improve the lot of our Indigenous community, spread throughout both urban and remote parts of the electorate. I was able to attend, a couple of evenings ago, a presentation by Dr Jeremy Sammut from the Centre for Independent Studies on his study into the safety and rights of Aboriginal children from dysfunctional households. It is called The kinship conundrum: the impact of Aboriginal self-determination on Indigenous child protection. I thought I would bring this to the parliament's attention because it was only a couple of weeks ago that we were dealing with the Closing the gap report. This study is a very sobering one indeed. Dr Sammut's report is a sobering read which goes to the heart of a number of sacred cows and shines a spotlight on the victims: the children. To use another cliche, they are the sacrificial lambs in this process. As in all good discussion papers, Dr Sammut challenges us to analytically think about the real effects and causes of many of the current problems within our Indigenous community, about the disconnection and the lives that are destroyed in so many ways, often at a young age. In a nutshell, he says there are more than 40,000 Australian children in out-of-home care, and the majority of them are Indigenous. Of that number, almost 48 per cent or in kinship arrangements. That is where they are placed with family or, in the case of remote communities, if family does not exist, perhaps with someone else within the community. Forty-two per cent are in home-based foster care. In speaking about those who provide kinship care and home-based foster care, let me say I know some of those families, and most of them do their utmost, and I thank them for the effort that they put into this. But in some cases, unfortunately, like anywhere, there are failures. It is very important to understand that some years ago our state-based departments of family and child care turned their backs, and I guess the whole nation did, on residential care for these young people, and for good reasons. There are many things that have gone wrong in the past. We carry the burden of the policies that led to the stolen generation and we are doing our very best to try and right the wrongs that have been done in the past. So, by 2004, the number of children in residential care had fallen to less than 1,000. But by 2013, it had got back up to over 2,100, despite the fact that we had turned our backs on residential care. Dr Sammut explains that the reason for this crisis is that so often the kinship arrangements, in particular, and the foster-care arrangements are a failure, and the children are stuck in a revolving door. And the family courts are very keen to send these children back to their families. In fact, Dr Sammut makes the point that they are probably too keen, because the children are getting sent back to dysfunctional homes. If they spend two or three years in a dysfunctional home—if they are scared, if there is violence, if they are being violated—there is a fair chance their life is ruined. Really, we have to challenge ourselves and ask whether we are dealing with this in the correct manner. Dr Sammut says that he believes there are times when children, for their own good, need to be completely removed from those families and for the families to give up their rights. I have no sympathy for the family that abuses their children, none at all. We should be totally focused on the outcomes for the child. Dr Sammut suggests we should be looking at higher adoption rates in Australia so that we can give these children permanent, loving homes. This will challenge all of us. I am challenged by it. But I think that, in a place like this parliament, we really need to talk about these issues and give them proper consideration, adult consideration. We should not make partisan arguments but talk about what we are trying to do to improve these children's lives. I am currently a member of the House Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs. We have spent 18 months on an inquiry into the impacts of alcohol and other drugs on Indigenous communities. Let me say that, if a child is brought up in a terrible, terrible place, there is a fair chance they will turn to drugs and alcohol at a very young age, and destroy their lives. Bendigo Electorate: Employment 77 16:51 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Today I wish to share with the House some of the experiences of young people in my electorate who are unemployed and seeking work. From the beginning I would like to acknowledge Senator Ricky Muir's public comments about his time as a young person who was unemployed. He spoke out about the hopelessness you feel when you cannot find work and the lack of self-worth you feel when you cannot find a job to provide for your family. It reminded me of the experience of a young man who came into my office late one Friday afternoon, angry and frustrated. This man said it was hopeless. He had just been to a JSA and seen a job advertised in the window. They were looking for someone who could be a storeman. He had just been made redundant from his job a few months earlier and had similar skills and qualifications. He thought, 'I can do that. It might be a little bit less pay, but I'd be keen to do that. I have a young family and a mortgage, and I want to do the right thing by my family.' When he went into the JSA they said, 'Sorry, you don't have a provider number. Get a provider number.' He got the provider number and then they said, 'Sorry, that job's not for you. It's reserved for somebody else. Go see your local MP,' which is how he ended up at my door, frustrated, saying, 'It's hopeless. I could work that job, but I can't apply.' He is not the only one to bring to me concerns about the JSAs and Centrelink and the entire system in which we try to help young people find work. A mother recently contacted me about her hopelessness in trying to support her son while he tried to find work. She said, 'My son is fast losing enthusiasm, and I don't blame him. These companies, the JSAs, have our young people over a barrel. Their clients, like my son, don't or can't speak up, because they fear losing what small allowances and entitlements they have. They are made to do countless useless courses and are sent out for jobs that they are not qualified for just so companies can look back at them and say, "You don't qualify; you don't have a job." What it does to his confidence to be continually rejected—it just frustrates me. I never thought that my son would be one of the long-term unemployed. I just want him to start working before he gives up completely.' That is a mother's hopelessness and frustration about her son's experience. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet some young people who are trying to do something about their situation. They are a team of young people in my electorate who are getting together in a new and exciting venture called Wood Gang. They are all under 30 and are working as a team as part of the young manufacturers group. They are designing a product which they hope to take to market. This product is a series of blocks that they have designed and produced and hope to manufacture. When I was out there the pride was visible on their faces, that they had worked collectively to make this product. It is a product that they believe will help young families and young people, particularly our little ones, understand their colours and how shapes fit together but also to have fun. What I learnt from that experience was that these are young people that many of us may have written off, but one person inspired them to get together to form this young manufacturers group. He was their energy and their inspiration. One young person in the group said to me, 'I have gone from potentially using this block of wood to hit somebody, and get myself in trouble and face the law, to turning it into something that I can be proud of and hope that my children one day may use.' These young people now have hope and are keen to get on with working. Another young person in my electorate, who posted a message on Facebook just this week, said she had found the job that she has been desperately looking for. She said: For the first time in my life, I woke up this morning happy to go to work. …   …   … It's not very often I am truly happy - today was the best day I've had in so many years. I feel like the luckiest person alive. These are Kate's reflections on finally getting a job that she can be proud of. We need to do more for these young people as a government and a community to make sure we have more hope and less hopelessness. Bedford, Ms Maddison, Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School 78 16:56 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest The Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School is a highly respected educational facility in my electorate, and I bring to the attention of the House its Indigenous Scholarship Program, now in its second year The school has a strong commitment to helping to bridge the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, recognising that one very significant area in which Indigenous people suffer disadvantage is through educational opportunities. The inaugural Indigenous Scholarship was awarded in 2014 to Maddison Bedford, a year 9 day student at Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School. I recently attended-the second scholarship announcement and listened to Maddison speak about what her scholarship had meant. I think it is important for me to read her words into Hansard. After welcoming us all, Maddison said: Before I begin my speech I would like to pay my respect to the traditional owners of this country; the Noongar people, whose ancestral lands we are meeting upon here today and thank them for welcoming me to this country. My name is Maddison Bedford or Ingbra – which is my traditional name given to me by my family in recognition of my Bunuba heritage and culture. I have been a student here since starting in Year 4 and am fortunate and proud to be the first recipient of an Indigenous Scholarship at Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School. This scholarship has provided access to a range of opportunities for me and helped develop my confidence and abilities as a positive role model and young Indigenous leader. Since being awarded the scholarship I have had the confidence to step forward and take up a range of opportunities that have pushed me out of my comfort zone – such as addressing you all today – being a House Council member for Knight, successfully applying and gaining a placement in the UWA Residential Science Camp Program, enthusiastically welcoming opportunities to represent our school in a range of sporting events – both here and in Perth and embraced the chance to travel to New Zealand as a part of a small number of delegates to the 2014 ROUND SQUARE JUNIOR REGIONAL CONFERENCE held at Kings College, Auckland. As well as all of this I have been keen to maintain my active participation in our school's strong partnership program with Djidi Djidi School and NAIDOC Week celebrations. Something I have done since joining the school in 2009. Scholarships like this help us close the gaps in Indigenous education and inspire students like me to have a go and set aspirational and achievable dreams for our future. The experiences of the past year have widened my view and ideas for my future and helped me establish a valuable support network of people keen to help me do well and be successful. From my initial meeting with Worsley BHP Asset president Ricus Grimbeek, who asked me lots of questions about what I wanted to do when I left school, to exploring cadetships and programs at Woodside – who are a major sponsor of the UWA Science Camp, I have had the chance to meet new people who have challenged my future career ideas and have shown me that there are a wide range of things that I can do when I leave school, including gaining access to a university of my choice. Although I have just started Year 10, I am now more aware of how taking up opportunities is important and can influence your life journey and would encourage everyone to take up chances like this. Next year I am hoping I will be successful in securing an Aboriginal School Based traineeship which will count towards my Western Australian Certificate of Education and give me hands on experience that will complement my future university goal of studying either Environmental Sciences or Veterinary Science – I haven't decided just yeti So in closing as the inaugural winner of the Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School Indigenous Scholarship I would like to personally say Thank you to all of the sponsors who have ensured the successful start of the program, the board of Goomburrup for their involvement and cultural guidance, the Board of Governors for their vision in opening access for Indigenous students, staff and of course my family. Maddison thanked everyone. I congratulate Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School on this initiative. Maddison is a fine example of the success of the program, the aim of which is to maximise educational opportunities for Indigenous youth within the South West of Western Australia. At present, one per cent of the school's student population is Indigenous, but their goal is to increase this number to be more reflective of the overall Australian population by offering a range of scholarships as part of an education program to Indigenous young people. The school is currently affiliated with the local Goomburrup Aboriginal Corporation and they are working in conjunction with Goomburrup and other related Aboriginal organisations on a range of projects. House adjourned at 17:01 NOTICES 79 NOTICES

Thursday, 5 March 2015

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:40.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 80 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Holt Electorate: Day of Nations 80 09:40 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I want to talk about a group of exceptional people I honoured on Australia Day. Thirty outstanding individuals and eight local organisations were commended for their contribution to our community at the Day of Nations celebrations in Hampton Park, which is an integral part of our Australia Day award celebrations in Holt. They deserve to be named in this place. They are: Casey Lowen, Charles Geriesi, David Esmore, Debra Jackson, Elizabeth Watson, Erin Wallace, Glenda Colthurst, senior pastors Graham and Julie Shand, Helen Evans, Jake Downward, Jason Sadler, Jennifer Corcoris and Elizabeth McLennan, John Bell, Reverand John McMahon, Pastor Julie Ohlson, Margaret Luxford, Mark Haughton, Maryann D’Costa, Ni Tec Leong, Pastor Norman Cayzer, Norman McLennan, Inspector Paul Breen, Sebit Tot, Sima Mohammadzayee, TeHeapera Nikora, Tim Howell, Vincent Manno, Vitali Lashkariov, Casey Regional Veterans’ Welfare Centre, Dandenong Emir Sultan Mosque, Inner Wheel of Cranbourne, Kane’s Crusade—Fawn Brady and Jessica White, Kalgidhar Sports and Cultural Association, One Vision Aid, South Eastern Region Oromo Community members—Sinke Wesho, Biftu Gutama and Abdeta Hanna and Vision of Hope. We know that with a high-profile Australian of the Year there is a wonderful commemoration and celebration of that which makes our country great. Holt Australia Day awards are to honour local community members who go above and beyond to make their community a better place to live and work and to make the community a safer place in many ways. You can see there is a broad diversity of people mentioned there. One of the great strengths of our region is that it is very diverse and fast growing with a lot of young families shifting out and making the region their home. I wish I could give you individual stories—I am not able to with the time remaining, but each of those people have an amazing story behind them. They are people like the Casey Regional Veterans Welfare Centre. The work they do, particularly for returned veterans—including our veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq—is quite amazing. They are right at the coalface. There is Kane's Crusade, with Fawn Brady and Jessica White. Fawn had lost her brother to suicide a number of years ago. He was a very young man. In dealing with her grief she channelled it into trying to assist others and prevent youth suicide in our region, which has been a major problem. Vison of Hope is a group of young men of Afghan background who want to make a contribution to the Australian community. They are doing wonderful works with young men and young women in the region. There are so many different regions stories I could tell. I was honoured to honour them on Australia Day for the contribution they make to our community. Page Electorate: Clarence Valley Triathlon Club 80 09:43 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page As we all know, different communities have different strengths and have sports and other activities that they are very good at. The Clarence Valley Triathlon Club is one that excels at an unusually high level. Sitting suspended from 09:44 to 10:03 (Quorum formed) Mr HOGAN 218019 As I was saying before, there are certain areas of certain parts of the country that just excel in certain things. I can tell everyone right now that the Clarence Valley Triathlon Club excels in its chosen sport. The club competed in the popular Trial Bay triathlon a few weeks ago, and there were some stunning results. Darren Adams was 22nd overall in the 45- to 49-year-olds. Brian Elvery was first in the 50- to 55-year-olds. Kim Elvery was second in the 55- to 59-year-olds—a very talented family there. Jane Wilson was second in the 40- to 45-year-olds. Roz Donohoe was third in the 55- to 59-year-olds. Penny Elvery was fourth in the 15- to 19-year-olds—so a family thing coming through there. Claire Ward was fifth in the 30- to 34-year-olds. Suzy Ross was sixth in the 35- to 39-year-olds. Kane Hancock was seventh in the 30- to 34-year-olds. Belinda Leary was seventh in the 45- to 49-year-olds. Jason Culton was ninth in the 40- to 44-year-olds. David Fleming was 10th in the 40- to 44-year-olds. Collette Adams was ninth in the 40- to 44-year-olds and Belinda Bock was ninth in the 30- to 34-year-olds. I congratulate the Clarence Valley Triathlon Club for their successful trip to the Trial Bay triathlon a few weekends ago. We all know that part of the health of someone is looking after themselves physically, as well as in other areas. These people are an inspiration not only to the Clarence Valley community but also to the wider community for the effort they are putting in and their fantastic results. I congratulate everyone in the Clarence Valley Triathlon Club for that effort. Education Funding 81 10:05 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Brisbane Christian College is an independent school in my electorate of Moreton. I have been contacted by this school. It is very concerned about the lack of adequate funding for children at Brisbane Christian College with disabilities. Now, the Gonski plan for school funding—a plan embraced by both sides of the chamber back in 2013, which Labor was very committed to while in government—included loadings for students with disabilities and $100 million was put in place by Labor as an interim measure to provide support for children with disabilities in schools. Labor planned to consult further with the states and territories to determine a consistent method of funding, because obviously the devil will be in the details in terms of what disabilities attract what money. One of the coalition's election promises in the lead-up to the election was to implement Labor's Gonski plan. In fact, Mr Pyne and Mr Abbott regularly said that this was a joint-ticket item. It was a promise repeated by the Prime Minister even after he was elected. The reality is now that a student with a disability can attract as little as around $4,000 in one state, but if they went to another state with the same disability they could attract up to $40,000. As anyone that knows education knows, this sort of money can make a significant difference in the educational support provided to a child and can turn them into a significant taxpayer rather than someone who attracts care and support from society. Making sure that students with disability are supported is the unfinished business of the Gonski reforms. What we saw after the Abbott government came into power was that the Gonski promise, like many others, was shattered. It was blown away like morning mist on the Brisbane River in summer. The Abbott government failed to even extend the interim payments that Labor brought in, let alone increase the funding for students with disabilities. Brisbane Christian College is just one of the schools in my electorate, but the same story is told across Australia. Brisbane Christian College, as a non-government school without the support of Education Queensland, is particularly concerned about the reduced funding for children with disabilities. Brisbane Christian College is particularly concerned because they are committed—whilst they are a school of faith, they are actually a school with to practical faith—to giving a helping hand to people who have problems. I know they have lots of great programs. They provide breakfast for some of the poorer kids in the area. This sort of practical faith could help so many people with the disabilities if the Abbott government had stayed true to their word. Children that have disabilities at non-government schools throughout Australia suffer under these significantly under-funded arrangements. Even worse, the funding differential becomes greater the higher the level of support needed by the child. Studies with disabilities need resources to level the learning playing field. They should have the opportunity, like every other child, to reach their full potential. Forde Electorate: Community Achievements 81 10:08 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It is always wonderful to stand in this place and recognise some of the wonderful efforts of those in our community. I think we would all recognise that 70 years is a long time. It is a lifetime for many people. For two of the great constituents in the electorate of Forde, that is the number of years they have been husband and wife. In a wonderful display of what married life really means, it is interesting to reflect on history. I think many new husbands today would find it difficult to reconcile that shortly after they were married, Mr Luther was sent off to serve in World War II. That was just one day after they were married on 17 February 1945. He served in the Air Force and spent two years in New Guinea before he was finally reunited with his wife and his married life. Sadly, there are not enough of this kind of good-news stories. I think it is an opportune time to reflect on the wonderful commitment that Mr and Mrs Luther have shown each other over those 70 years. I would like to congratulate them on a wonderful milestone. I hope that it continues for many years to come. I would also like to take this opportunity to reflect on the wonderful work that the Chambers Flat Rural Fire Brigade have done in flying to Perth recently to help battle some of the bushfires in Western Australia. The volunteers from this fire brigade were among 82 Queensland firefighters who travelled across the country to assist those local firefighters. I thank the members of the Chambers Flat Rural Fire Brigade for the support they have shown to fellow Australians, particularly to those facing extreme difficulty. In other great news from our local electorate more than 100 locals have got new jobs—with the opening of a new shopping centre at Loganlea. The centre includes a Woolworths, which is employing some 90 people. One of our great local business families, the Lane family, have opened their fourth Coffee Club store in Logan, employing an additional 20 people. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the official opening last week, but I am sure I will visit the centre regularly. I know the Lane family and their wonderful Coffee Clubs always do a great job looking after people in our community and providing a place for people to catch up, have a coffee and spend some time relaxing in the busyness of life. We are blessed in our community with a wonderful group of people who volunteer and contribute so much. We thank them for their wonderful efforts. Hawkins, Ms Rhonda 82 10:11 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Last week I wanted to call the University of Western Sydney—my great local university. I was looking for a person who might help me in a particular area and I wanted to know who the best person to call was. Naturally, I thought I would call Rhonda, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor. To my horror, I realised that Rhonda Hawkins had retired the previous month. For all of us in Western Sydney that phenomenal source of knowledge—a person who had been with the university for 31 years and had served it incredibly well—had left our small world and gone to spend more time with her grandchildren. We will have much harder jobs because of it. I am sure in my office and all around Western Sydney we are having to increase our staffing levels to cope with the loss of Rhonda's support, so extraordinary she was. Rhonda hates attention. There are very few photos of Rhonda around. She does not like to be in the limelight. She is probably cowering under the bed at the moment if she has realised I am speaking about her in the parliament! She has been like the glue of the University of Western Sydney. She was there in the early days of previous Vice-Chancellor Janice Reid; in fact, she was there for the interview process. The two of them were a formidable team who led the university through it re-emergence, growth and restructure and all the trials that have made the university so strong. Rhonda was one of those very quiet achievers. She had a wicked sense of humour, but you had to be around for it. She had an unflappable good common sense and ability to work with everyone. That made her absolutely essential. She knew everyone. She knew them personally. She knew what they did. She knew what they needed. She knew the students as well as the staff and professors. It was her quick grasp of self-discipline and her ability to keep that big picture in mind—and her extraordinary corporate knowledge—that made her valuable. We will really miss her not just within the university but on the campus itself. She was the first deputy vice-chancellor of the university not to hold a professorship. But she held responsibility for a large number of areas that kept the university running on a day-to-day basis, including finance, risk management, strategy, IT, campus and capital development, marketing and communications, and community and regional engagement, to name just a few. You could add to that list that she did anything else that needed doing—she was there. Nothing was too trivial for Rhonda if it needed doing. She was absolutely there for the university and for all of us. Her problem-solving and general engagement of the university community—and the wider community—was a very valuable asset and one that I know will be sorely missed. I wish Rhonda Hawkins all the best. Her grandchildren were there for her farewell. I know she is spending much more time with them now than she has been able to over the last 31 years. Thank you Rhonda, and good luck. Australian Defence Force: Pay and Conditions 82 10:14 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro I was very pleased to welcome the Prime Minister and the Defence minister to Headquarters Joint Operations Command in my electorate of Eden-Monaro yesterday. The Prime Minister and the Defence minister received a briefing on the preparation of a military force to contribute to a capacity-training mission in Iraq. While that was occurring, my parliamentary colleagues the member for Bass and Senator Reynolds and I received a brief on the Joint Operations Command itself. The minister took the opportunity to announce at that venue that the government will ask the Chief of the Defence Force and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service to seek the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal's agreement to vary the terms of the current workplace remuneration agreement. This variation will see an increase in pay for ADF personnel of two per cent per annum over the life of the agreement. This means that ADF pay will rise above the current annual inflation rate of 1.7 per cent. I was especially pleased to be present for this announcement. Eden-Monaro is a major Defence seat. We have over 2,000 Defence related workers who live in the electorate. We also have some 3½ thousand veterans who live in the seat. I have listened to the concerns of those Defence members and their families. I have listened to their views and I have represented those concerns to the Defence minister and the Prime Minister. I know that my colleagues the member for Bass and Senator Reynolds have made similar representations. I recently met with the three service warrant officers at Defence headquarters, in Canberra, at Russell Hill. The service warrant officers are the senior non-commissioned officers in each service. They are an effective conduit between senior Defence leadership and Defence members and a valuable communication resource. They provide a voice for sailors, soldiers, airmen and airwomen and they have the ear of the service chiefs. I held a candid and very valuable discussion with these three fine individuals. Amongst other things they impressed upon me the importance of wider conditions to our serving personnel. The incentives that motivate our Defence personnel to do the extraordinary things that they do are different from almost every other vocation. It has never been the crass dollars-and-cents transactions that those opposite have tried to exploit. Our Defence Force members are moved by different incentives. The ADF does not have a sense of entitlement; they have a sense of duty. It is a different calculus. Basic recreational leave for someone who might spend six, nine or 12 months away from their loved ones, at times—indeed often—under dangerous and stressful circumstances, takes on a very different value. We understand this, and that is why we acted quickly to ensure that there would be no reduction of ADF leave. It is why we are acting now to ensure an appropriate and responsible pay outcome that does not add to the budget repair task. The coalition have always valued the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. The coalition has always understood the unique compact between the Australian people and those who serve and sacrifice in Australia's interests. Metcalf, Professor Donald, AC 83 10:17 Mr GRAY 8W5 Brand I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the life of Professor Donald Metcalf AC, who passed away on 15 December 2014 in Melbourne, Victoria. Don was a colossus of science and a pioneering medical researcher whose discoveries helped more than 20 million cancer patients worldwide to recover from their cancer therapies. He revolutionised stem-cell transplantation. Don dedicated his 60-year career at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne to the study of blood cancers and the regulation of the blood system. He was the father of modern haematology. Don's contributions were profound. His discovery of colony-stimulating factors—the hormones that regulate the production of blood cells—has become an integral part of cancer treatment around the world. Born in February 1929 in the small country town of Mittagong, New South Wales, Don was the son of schoolteachers and was an inquisitive and conscientious student. He obtained a scholarship to the University of Sydney to study medicine, graduating in 1953 with a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery. He met his future wife, Jo, during his medical residency. Don joined the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in 1954, supported by Cancer Council Victoria's Carden Fellowship, an award that he held until his retirement in December 2014. Don's studies of blood-production control led him to speculate that one or more hormones controlled white blood cell production. These hormones, which he termed colony-stimulating factors—CSFs—were his research focus for more than 50 years. Don recognised that CSFs had a potential role in clinical medicine, particularly in cancer treatment. He was a central figure in the international clinical trials of CSFs in the 1980s. On the basis of these studies, G-CSF—Neupogen—was approved for clinical use in 1991. In addition to protecting people with cancer from serious, potentially fatal infections, it was also used to enable patients to have more demanding rounds of chemotherapy to eradicate their cancer. One of the first patients to benefit from Professor Metcalf's work was the famed Spanish tenor Jose Carreras. After being diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia, which did not respond to initial treatment, Carreras received the treatment regime that included CSFs. He responded positively. Senor Carreras recovered, and he visited the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in 1991 to meet Professor Metcalf and thank him and the WEHI team for the role that they played in the development of the treatment. An estimated 20 million people worldwide have now been treated with CSFs. Don was a decorated scientist. His honours and awards included the Companion of the Order of Australia, the Albert Lasker Clinical Medical Research Award, the Royal Medal of the Royal Society in the UK, the Prime Minister's Prize for Science and the Victoria Prize. Don was a loyal collaborator, a generous mentor to hundreds of young researchers and an inspiration to thousands of scientists around the world. His colleagues spoke about Don's remarkable ability to identify talent in younger researchers and mould a cohesive, loyal and vibrant team that constantly made groundbreaking discoveries. Decades ahead of his time, his model of collaborative multidisciplinary research shaped the culture of the Walter and Eliza Hall institute and is now seen as a mandatory model for significant breakthroughs to be made in medical science. Don was a devoted family man, and his wife, Jo, daughters Kate, Mary-Ann, Penelope and Johanna, and grandchildren James, Martin, Patrick, Elizabeth, Rose and Robert meant everything to him. He would often publicly acknowledge that, without them, he would have achieved little of note. Australia and the world would have been poorer for that. Death Penalty 84 10:20 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey In this House of Representatives of 150 elected members and across the way in the Senate with 75 senators, on any given day, all of us can be simultaneously concerned about a range of issues. But on this day all 225 of us have one single thought in our minds, as do so many millions of Australians, and that is the fate of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran in Indonesia. All of us in this parliament are united in our thoughts and prayers for them and their families at this time. All of us are united in our combined plea for mercy in these times. This parliament has come together in a united way with a united voice to Indonesia. We did so in the House of Representatives with a motion supported by all 150 members. The foreign minister and the shadow foreign minister have made joint representations, as have the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Beyond this parliament, six former prime ministers have made that very same plea to Indonesia. None of us understate the seriousness of their crime, as the foreign minister said back in February: Without doubt, Andrew and Myuran need to pay for their crimes with lengthy jail sentences. But they should not need to pay with their lives. That is the position of all of us. This morning, the member for Berowra and the member for Fowler led a number of us at dawn in a candlelit vigil, where the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the foreign minister and the shadow foreign minister also appealed. The Prime Minister is still making representations, as is the foreign minister. We all know in this place it is late in the day, but what we say is, 'It's not too late.' Death Penalty, Budget 84 10:23 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I would like to associate myself with the words of the member on the opposite side and say that I would like to plead for a last minute reprieve for our two Australians on death row in Indonesia. It was wonderful this morning to join together with members from both sides of the House in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately my contribution to this debate is not going to be quite so bipartisan. Yesterday was a national day of action and tens of thousands of workers came out to express their concern and opposition to the Abbott government's ripping out of services in the community—its action in relation to Medicare, education, all the public and community sector services, retirement security, and decent jobs and penalty rates. What we have seen is a government that is determined to undermine workers, and their pay and conditions. When Tony Abbott came to power as Prime Minister, he said Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated. This week, he said that the Medicare co-payment—the GP tax—is dead, buried and cremated. We have seen how he has outsourced industrial relations to the Productivity Commission in the hope that they will deliver a report that will say that Work Choices was on the right track—that penalty rates should be attacked; that workers should not be paid penalty rates when they work at the weekends or on public holidays like Christmas day. We on this side of the House oppose cuts to workers' penalty rates. We think that workers should get fair pay for a fair day's work. Mr Taylor interjecting— Ms HALL 83N I notice the member for Hume sitting on the other side of chamber interjecting on what I am saying. He needs to get out in the real world and talk to real workers, and then he will understand just how much they depend on penalty rates. Without penalty rates, many people could not afford to pay off their mortgage; they could not afford to have a decent standard of living. Those on the other side of this House have absolutely no concept of how difficult it is for an ordinary, average Australian to survive. All they want to do is cut and attack pay and conditions. I say that they stand condemned for that. I join with those workers. Hume Electorate: Infrastructure 84 10:27 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume It is a great feeling to speak on a funding windfall for Hume following announcements of successful projects under a range of federal infrastructure programs. Eight councils in Hume are receiving a share of the $2.61 million in Roads to Recovery payments this quarter, and they include: Cootamundra, Cowra, Goulburn, Upper Lachlan, Weddin, Wingecarribee, Wollondilly and Yass. A massive eight bridge and road projects across Hume are receiving a share in over $6 million of funding, matched dollar for dollar by the state government, under the Bridges Renewal and Heavy Vehicle Safety programs. These programs mean a significant net benefit for local government, and they enhance jobs and growth in these communities. I am sure that many in this place remember the RDAF funding commitments under Labor. What a massive disappointment. Local councils, a number in Hume, are still trying to make up for the funds that were promised but never budgeted. In an audit of the third and fourth RDAF funding rounds under Labor, published in November 2014, the Australian National Audit Office was blunt: … there was not a clear trail through the assessment stages to demonstrate that the projects awarded funding were those that had the greatest merit … It was very clear. Referring to round four, specifically, the ANAO said: … 56 per cent of those applications awarded funding had been assessed by the department to not satisfactorily meet one or more of the selection criteria. They do not meet the selection criteria. I sit on the parliament's Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and I have to tell you that this kind of wasteful, unbudgeted chaos will never pass muster again—certainly not under this government's watch. Handouts to electorates have changed. They had to. The new era of probity is welcome. Getting funding into regional communities via federal grant programs means identifying relevant programs and doing the work to complete applications to a high standard. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWO Order! Let the member speak. Mr TAYLOR 231027 Those who know me realise I love nothing more than being out on the road, talking to locals and finding solutions. Hume is reaping the benefits as a result. We are pulling huge dollars into the electorate in the wake of these infrastructure announcements. We are also having impressive success in other federal programs. In Hume, 27,500 premises are on the 18-month NBN roll out. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWO Order! Mr TAYLOR 231027 We have five Green Army projects, joint state and federal funding for the Barton Highway Improvement Strategy, Safer Streets funding, Anniversary Landcare Grants, as well as one of the highest numbers of successful Anzac Centenary grant applications of any electorate. I will continue to work closely with local councils and community groups to ensure we see more success in 2015. Cycling, Paulon, Mr Alberto 85 10:30 Mr KELVIN THOMSON UK6 Wills On Sunday, I held a very successful mobile office at the Sydney Road Brunswick Music Festival where I met with many residents to talk about a wide variety of national and local issues. However, lingering close to the thoughts of many at the festival was the tragic death of the young 25-year-old Italian national Alberto Paulon last Friday. Alberto was cycling with his partner and was apparently doored then hit by a truck on Sydney Road in the vicinity of Barkly Square. This is devastating for the young man's partner, their families and our local community. Everyone should feel safe as they commute to and from their home, shops or work. Unfortunately for this young man, a tragic set of circumstances has meant this commute cost him his life. Sydney Road is one of Melbourne's worst stretches of road for bike crashes. Almost half of reported casualty crashes on the road in the last five years involved a cyclist. There were 179 incidents in that time and 85 involved a bike rider; 25 of whom were taken to hospital. Around 360 cyclists per day use Sydney Road in the two-hour morning peak. According to census data, and as reported by the Bicycle Network, the highest level of participation in travel to work by bicycle in 2011 was recorded in Yarra and Moreland. Moreland experienced a great percentage increase in people bicycling to work; an 80 per cent increase between the 2006 census and the December 2011 census. In Moreland, more than one person now rides for every 10 people who commute to work by car. Cycling is increasingly being recognised as viable mode of transport. Sydney Road is becoming increasingly congested as a result of rapid population growth and the proliferation of high-density developments. As a result of this tragedy, the state member for Brunswick, the honourable Jane Garrett, yesterday held an emergency meeting of VicRoads, police, cycling groups, Moreland City Council and Yarra Trams to discuss how Sydney Road can be made safer. I welcome the recently announced $1.6 million investment by the Victorian government to reduce accidents involving cyclists along Sydney Road. This includes banning right-hand turns along parts of Sydney Road between Barkly Square and Albion Street, upgrades to the lighting and signs and improving bike facilities along Sydney Road. I have written to the relevant authorities in relation to this matter to offer my assistance and support for any measures that will prevent such an incident occurring again. I am willing and able to work with all stakeholders, including the Moreland Bicycle User Group, who do great work in advocating for greater investment in local cycling. In the meantime, our thoughts are with the family of this young man who are going through this difficult period of loss. Tomorrow, cyclists will be riding up Sydney Road from Brunswick Road to Moreland Road from 5:30 pm as a mark of respect for the life of this young man. It is my intention to join them. Solomon Electorate: Child Care, Nobel, Ms Rebecca 86 10:33 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I rise today to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of all the workers in the childcare centres across my electorate of Solomon and, in particular, Rebecca Nobel from the Parap Family Centre. Rebecca has worked at the Parap Family Centre for three decades. One of my staff members tells me fondly of the time he dropped his 10-month-old son off to the centre and how, despite the little fellow's tears and the father's stress, Rebecca's pragmatic approach and unshakable smile had little Cameron crawling around with his new chums and smiling in next to no time. Working in the childcare industry is not an easy job. It is a role that is physically, emotionally and intellectually demanding. Children need to be picked up, they need to be played with and they need their comfort when they are upset. They need to feel safe away from the family environment. On top of all that, they need to learn. They need to have their curiosity nurtured and their questions answered. An educator at a childcare centre is a teacher, a carer, a mediator and a counsellor—and all this to the most innocent and vulnerable in our society. As a mother and a grandmother, I cannot fathom how childcare workers are able to give so much love and attention to so many children day in and day out. They are just amazing people. It is a really sad figure that the average burnout rate in the childcare sector is around seven to eight years. This makes it even more remarkable that Rebecca has spent 30 years in this one centre. I have no idea how many children Rebecca would have cared for across the three decades in the Parap Family Centre, but it is now possible that she is caring for the second generation of the same families—that is, that she is looking after the children of the children she cared for in the 1980s. So, on behalf of the thousands of children and families in Darwin who have benefited from Rebecca Nobel's dedication, wisdom, amazing smile and endless love, I would like to put on the record our sincere thanks for an incredible three decades of service. South Australian Liberal Party 86 10:35 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I was reading the Bunyip newspaper the other day and— An honourable member interjecting— Mr CHAMPION HW9 It is a good read. An article under the headline 'Transport carries on' referred to the opening of the STC terminal, which was given a federal grant during the life of the previous government. I did not get an invite to the opening—which I think is a strange lapse of protocol by the Playford council, and I am sure one that will not be repeated. The Bunyip records: Playford Mayor Glenn Dockerty, who officially opened the new Intermodal Terminal in lieu of Federal Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs and Liberal Senator for South Australia Sean Edwards, said this project sets the north up to the be the logistics hub of South Australia. This is a very important project and it was one, as I said, that was commissioned in the last term of the Labor government, and one that I pushed along because of the obvious issues about unemployment in the local area. I think it will be a logistics hub for Adelaide. You can understand why the member for Mayo, Mr Briggs, the federal Minister for Infrastructure, and Senator Sean Edwards cannot be seen together to open this project, because an article by Mr Butterly and Mr Probyn on page 8 of the West Australia tells us: Senator Edwards took an expletive-filled call from Federal minister Jamie Briggs— and this is about submarines— accusing him of lying and deliberately misrepresenting the PM's position to bolster his Senate preselection chances. The article went on: Senator Edwards last night stood by his version of events. 'There might be one of two highly ambitious colleagues about the place and that's fine, but the reality is there were but two people a party to that telephone conversation,' he said. 'Your anonymous correspondent wasn't one of them.' We know that these two members of the Liberal Party in South Australia are at each other's throats, and we know that the shadow of the Senate Liberal Party preselections for South Australia hang in the balance. Senator Edwards is determined, as I understand it, to push Senator Fawcett to perhaps an unwinnable place on the Senate ticket. I have something to do with both Senator Edwards and Senator Fawcett. I have had both of them campaign against me, and I can tell you that Senator Fawcett is a much tougher opponent on the campaign trail and a much better adornment to this parliament than Senator Edwards is. Gippsland Electorate: Township of Churchill 87 10:38 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland It is with great pleasure that I rise and speak today about the upcoming 50th anniversary of the township of Churchill, which is in my electorate of Gippsland. For those who have not been to Churchill, it is a 10-minute drive south of Morwell and is located in the foothills of the beautiful Strzelecki Ranges. It is home to Gippsland's only university, outstanding schools, strong sporting clubs and active community groups. Proclamation of the township of Churchill was made by the shire of Morwell on 15 March 1965—and, in 10 days from today, this vibrant community will be marking this milestone with a number of events. Among these will be a combined churches church service, while the Churchill District Community Association will hold a commemorative ceremony and plaque unveiling at the Churchill Town Hall Plaza, complete with displays and activities. The local media outlets are also preparing to celebrate the milestone. My former employer, the Latrobe Valley Express newspaper, will publish a special commemorative booklet and the local Churchill newspaper, the Churchill and District News, will also publish a special edition for the anniversary. Human settlement in the Churchill area dates back more than 50 years. It was the site of a large communal settlement for the Gunai Kurnai people near the current township well before that. European settlement dates back to the 1840s, with the establishment of Hazelwood Station by Albert Brodribb and William Bennett. But the story about the town of Churchill itself really started in 1962, when the Victorian Government announced it would establish a new town to replace Yallourn and name it Hazelwood. It was expected to have a population of 40,000 by 1990. But, as this progressed, there was a late push to name the town Churchill following the death of Sir Winston Churchill in January 1965. There were pockets of resistance to naming Churchill after the British Prime Minister. However, the then State Minister for Housing, Lindsay Thompson, was robust in his defence of this decision. He told the Victorian parliament: The move was a fitting one to perpetuate the name of the British Commonwealth's great war-time statesman, whose strong leadership and inspiring oratory were major factors in bringing victory to the forces of freedom. It proved to be very prudent decision, because over the years the township of Churchill has shown the same doggedness, resilience and reinvention that its famous namesake was renowned for. This was especially the case after the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, where the Churchill and district fire claimed 11 lives in the immediate surrounding region. In the face of that extraordinary adversity, the local community remained strong, helping each other out in what was, without doubt, the town's darkest hour. I can still recall attending community events in the region at the time, and the support that the people of Churchill provided to each other at that time was quite extraordinary. The Morwell Historical Society, the Minister for Communications and Australia Post have been able to add an even greater significance to this year's anniversary through a commemorative postmark for the town's anniversary featuring the wartime Prime Minister. In conclusion, Churchill is a community known for its ability to unite and get things done. I am very proud to be Churchill's representative in the federal parliament and I look forward to continuing to work with this great community in the years ahead. I wish everyone associated with the town of Churchill all the very best for their 50th anniversary celebrations. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ZN4 Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. ADJOURNMENT 87 ADJOURNMENT Indi Electorate: Alternative Education Programs 88 10:44 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I believe that young people are our future, and education, followed by meaningful work, is the key to ensuring that all Australians, and particularly young people who live in regional electorates such as Indi, are able to reach their potential. Today I would like to talk about two programs where community, government, philanthropy, families and young people work together—with wonderful results. The programs are 2coolforschool and Hands On Learning. The 2cool4school program is a pilot program for young people not in school and not employed. It is based in the Albury Wodonga Community College under the guidance of Rodney Wangman. Over either six or 12 months, 2cool4school students learn how to study, whether at home or in safe learning places, such as with a supporting coach. The 2cool4school program currently works with over 1,000 students—developing skills and work opportunities and building self-esteem.    I am pleased to report that the 2cool4school success rate is currently at 90 per cent. Evaluations show that 2cool4school has transformed the lives of many individuals and helped to reduce ethnic, Indigenous and regional inequality while enhancing community wellbeing in all its forms, including health, happiness and employment. Hands On Learning is another program making a huge difference. It is being run in four schools in Indi—Benalla College, FCJ College Benalla, Wodonga Middle Years College and Belvoir Special School. With support from philanthropic groups such as Benalla's Tomorrow Today Foundation, Hands on Learning is running a school early intervention program one day a week. It provides alternatives to traditionally based education and engages students in creative construction projects. An evaluation has shown that real retention rates for HOL students have been above 95 per cent each year for the last 10 years. The costs of our young people disengaging from traditional education during secondary school for reasons such as social disadvantage, learning difficulties, mental illness, disability and lack of transport are very well documented. Investing in keeping young people engaged in learning provides them and the whole economy with benefits through increased employment and earnings, as well as positive outcomes for health, family life, community participation and cohesion. I am so proud of the educators in my electorate, particularly teachers such as Peter Janas, Ed Bishop and Frank Fischer. They make this happen. To all the teachers and to all the schools in Indi: you are creating opportunities for our youth to engage and helping them to realise their potential. It is vital that government continues this work, as well as investigating additional incentives to address the service gaps. In this regard, I would particularly like to nominate the problems with transport, mobile phone coverage and broadband. I believe our young people are important. They deserve this investment and I support every endeavour from the government and from our community to make sure we continue to invest in them. Robertson Electorate: St Philip's Christian College 88 10:48 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Today I rise to honour the work of St Philip's Christian College in Narara. It is a fantastic school that also has great personal significance for me, having formerly been both a student and a teacher there. I am pleased to say that, even after the many years since I walked through those gates for the final time as a year 12 graduate, it remains a shining light for education in my electorate. It was great for me to have the opportunity to visit the school last month, not only to reflect on its fantastic past but also to inspect the school and marvel at its future prospects. This is a school delivering quality education in a modern learning environment. I will give the chamber a few fun facts while I go on a trip down memory lane. My father, Max Warren, served as a principal of the college back in the 1980s and the 1990s, when it was called Gosford Christian Community School. I also had the honour and privilege of working there as a teacher for a few years after I completed my university studies. On indulgence, I also note that it was where my husband Christopher proposed to me some 18 years ago. In fact the proposal took place in front of my entire year 8 English class—on the same grounds where I was on this occasion last month able to open the brand-new middle school building. It was a fantastic honour to cut that ribbon for the opening of the new middle school building and to inspect the plans they have for a revamped junior school building, which will be partly funded by the federal government. I spoke with many of the staff and students of the college both before and after the official opening and they were as thrilled as I was with the quality of the rooms, their flexibility and the welcoming atmosphere. The new classrooms are designed to be really bright, vibrant learning spaces that allow for flexible learning, and they are suitable for a range of student learning styles in an inclusive environment. The principal, Mrs Michelle Kelly, has indicated to me that this is a 21st century, world-class education building model, and she has also advised that they are looking to extend this model to the junior school. During the welcome breakfast that they held before the official opening, I was really pleased to be able to inspect the college's junior school building plans. They are fantastic designs, and I really look forward to seeing progress in the coming years. A $750,000 grant has been approved for the college for this project under capital grant funding to non-government schools, as part of the Capital Grants Programme, which assists primary and secondary schools to improve capital infrastructure where they otherwise might not have access to sufficient capital resources. Funding can be used for a wide range of infrastructure projects, from the planning stage to the fit-out stage. This particular project will see funds used on the construction of two flexible general learning areas, two withdrawal rooms, four storerooms, toilets and other fittings. I am really proud to be part of a coalition government that is committed to improving the quality of our school education, a government that wants to ensure that students are equipped with the skills they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive and technologically advanced world. St Philip's Christian College is certainly a great example of outstanding educational opportunities on the Central Coast. Many graduates and parents who I know and who I have met many years after teaching and being a student there are now themselves leaders in our community—outstanding health workers, teachers, emergency services personnel, business leaders, entrepreneurs, lawyers, artists, musicians and photographers. I commend this school to the House. In conclusion, I would like to thank the principal, Michelle Kelly; the deputy principal, Malcolm East; the head of middle school, Ben Yap; middle school students who I was privileged to meet and speak with during the school opening; and the entire college community for their invitation to attend the welcome breakfast and to open this important new building. It was indeed a very great honour, and I look forward to being able to return again and visit in the not too distant future. Rail Infrastructure 89 10:52 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith The 2008 Inner city rail capacity study found that the demand for train services during morning peak times in Brisbane will reach between 70,000 and 80,000 people by 2016. By 2026, modelling suggests that this will have increased to well over 100,000 people each and every day. If nothing is done, the rail network is anticipated to be at capacity, but there is a solution. The solution is not the solution that my colleague Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler, referred to as the Bombay solution, which was to just rip out seats in trains to fit more people in, as the previous LNP government attempted in Queensland. That is not the solution. It is also not the second-rate BaT tunnel—bus and train tunnel—that Campbell Newman proposed when the LNP was in government in Queensland. The solution is the Cross River Rail project, which is a project that would allow an extra 17,000 people to travel on the Brisbane rail network in the peak period. The Cross River Rail project would have taken 14,000 cars off the road. Brisbane commuters lose about 11 million hours annually stuck in traffic, and I have been one of them myself. Congestion is really costly; it causes long travel times, heightened pollution and increased vehicle running costs, and all of those things affect the productivity of a city like Brisbane. Cross River Rail would have opened up more services from Brisbane's northern and western suburbs, as well as the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast. It is an investment in Brisbane's future and it is shovel-ready. The feasibility study is done, thanks to the $20 million in funding from the previous federal Labor government back in 2009, when the former member for Griffith was the Prime Minister. The preferred route is done, the environmental impact study is done, and it was ticked off by the Queensland Coordinator-General. The Bligh Labor government in Queensland took the project to Infrastructure Australia in 2011 for independent analysis. In the 2011-12 financial year, Infrastructure Australia recommended the project to the federal government as ready to proceed, with a positive benefit-cost ratio of 1.41. So what happened? Unfortunately, Tony Abbott happened. The Prime Minister happened. There had been an agreement reached between Commonwealth and the Newman government in Queensland to fund Cross River Rail. The announcement was ready to go, but the Commonwealth money—notwithstanding that it was in the budget—was pulled by the Abbott government on the week that it had been due to be announced by the then Premier, Campbell Newman. Tony Abbott, when he was Leader of the Opposition, actually said that it was not the federal government's place to fund urban rail projects. You wonder why this government bothers having an infrastructure ministry. Why not just have a roads ministry, if this this government does not believe in funding rail. He said that the federal government should stick to its knitting—and the knitting is roads. How unbelievably short sighted, for someone who wants to be known as the infrastructure prime minister. Research commissioned by the Australasian Railway Association in its 2014 study, TheValue of Action versus the Cost of Inaction, found that investing in rail to reduce road congestion in Brisbane would achieve the same reduction in congestion at only 57 per cent of the cost of road-based strategies. It was the former Labor government that lifted infrastructure investment from 20th in the OECD to first. This current government ought to have a commitment to infrastructure that includes rail infrastructure. It ought to put its funding and support behind urban rail, because urban rail reduces congestion, and reducing congestion aids and improves the productivity of our cities. We have all seen the Grattan Institute research about the amount of time it takes for working people to get to the places where the jobs are, which tend to be in the CBD. Rail projects can assist with reducing that congestion and can help connect working people to jobs, which is what we need. Thankfully, the former LNP state government has been replaced with a new Labor government, led by Premier Palaszczuk, and we have a wonderful new Queensland Minister for Transport and Infrastructure in the Deputy, Premier, the Hon. Jackie Trad MP, who is also within my electorate of Griffith. We now have a minister and a deputy premier in Jackie Trad who is prepared to stand up for the people of Brisbane. She understands just how important rail infrastructure is. She understands that the government ought to commit to ensuring that we have good, productive rail infrastructure. The people of Queensland will not cop a failure to support the infrastructure needs of the future. The people of Queensland are very clear about what they want when it comes to the way that Queensland should work. A really good example is the comprehensive rejection of asset sales at the last election. I call on this federal government to start supporting rail infrastructure. (Time expired) Proceedings suspended from 10:57 to 11:21 Mining 90 11:21 Mr WILSON 198084 O'Connor Today, I would like to speak about one of the current threats to the Western Australian resources industry: the WA state government's current review of mining royalties. I am specifically concerned about any changes to the gold royalty rate. The WA government's royalty system is designed to capture 10 per cent of mine head value, which translates to a different royalty rate depending on how much processing a mineral requires. Gold is subject to a 2.5 per cent base rate, based on a gross value of the metal. The iron ore royalty rate is 7.5 per cent of the value of crushed and screened ore, and base metals, such as nickel and silver, attract a rate of five per cent of the value of the concentrate at the smelter. Excuse the pun, but it is a minefield just to keep up with the rates for each mineral. The mining royalties review started in 2013 and was scheduled to be completed by the end of last year, but we are still waiting to hear what the recommendations are. I agree with the Gold Royalties Response Group in that the review, after dragging on for almost three years, needs to be resolved, and quickly. Potentially, this uncertainty is causing even more harm to the industry. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia manager of economics and tax, Shannon Burdeu, said the report's details need to be released soon to ensure security for the sector. I completely agree with her. The Gold Royalty Response Group, which is made up of eleven goldmining companies, was formed to offer its members a platform to address the gold royalties issue with a united voice. Spokesman for the GRRG Allan Kelly said the current rate was fair and the effect would be devastating if it were increased. He said Immediately there'd be some mines that are marginal at the current gold price and if you increase the royalty rate you'll see those mines shut down but I guess longer term you'll also see a reduction in investment in keeping existing mines going and new mines opening. In the last financial year, the gold industry lost 4,000 jobs, a clear indication of the current tough operating conditions they are already working in. Goldmining is a very important industry in my electorate of O'Connor. It is an industry that has sustained Western Australia since the late 1880s. In WA alone, the goldmining industry employs approximately 20,000 people. The gold sector pays more than $300 million in taxes and royalties to the government in Western Australia, which helps build our roads, schools, hospitals and police stations. Any increase to the gold royalty, though, could put jobs, and ultimately communities, at risk. Any royalty rate increase will have a significant impact on the region. According to a study by Deloitte for the GRRG, over the past six years the average cost of gold production for WA goldmines has doubled from $511 an ounce to at least $1,100 an ounce. As production costs have risen, companies have had to shed staff. Doray Minerals Managing Director Allan Kelly has claimed that industry cannot bear any additional costs. Mr Kelly said: WA gold miners continue to face tough operating conditions. Any increases in royalties will see mines close and jobs lost. More than 4000 direct jobs in gold were lost last year as a result of miners being forced to downsize and the reality is that any additional costs will result in more job losses and seriously damage our industry. At last year's WA Liberal Party state conference, a motion to oppose any change to gold royalties was introduced and passed. The motion came from the Kalgoorlie branch of the Liberal Party. They know the value that gold mining has to their town. The Super Pit, the biggest open mine pit in Australia, is located right next to Kalgoorlie-Boulder and has been operated by Consolidated Gold Mines since 1989. It produces up to 850 ounces of gold every year. Any increase in the gold royalty rate will put more pressure on mines such as the Super Pit. As it is, there are no surplus profits being made in the mining industry to sustain an increase in the royalty rate. In fact, from a revenue point of view it could end up being a negative for the government. This is because it would scare off investors and potential start-ups and even see some existing operations close down. We cannot keep hammering our productive industries. I will oppose any move that places more pressure on the gold industry. I urge the Western Australian government to seriously consider the impact that any changes to gold royalties will have on the viability of small to medium mining operations and, therefore, the communities in my electorate. Perich, Mr Tony 91 11:26 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa Last weekend at the Indo-China Chinese Association, I briefly raised the very Australian story of Anoulack Chanthivong, the son of Laotian boat refugees. His family went on to establish a greengrocery business and he eventually became mayor of Campbelltown. He studied at the London School of Economics and is currently a candidate for the state parliament. Today, in a similar vein, I want to speak of Tony Perich, who in late 2014 became the Urban Taskforce Property Person of the Year. In being awarded that honour, a comment was made that he was 'one of the main drivers of residential development on Sydney's south-west fringe and was, indeed, a hands-on person'. He is involved heavily in his own development company with his brother, as well as in joint ventures with Landcom at Oran Park and elsewhere in Sydney. This is, again, a very Australian story of migration, hard work and success. His parents Kolombo and Julia migrated from Croatia in 1948 and initially established a tomato-growing operation before diversifying into dairy at a later stage. He himself was educated at Liverpool High School and left at an early stage to enter the company's dairy business. He said of his father Kolombo that in Croatia he worked with his bare hands on the vineyards and that his family had been dirt poor. By 2014 he was the 39th wealthiest person in this country—a billionaire. Interestingly enough, he did not build that wealth in IT or in mining operations, the usual industries that we see wealthy Australians involved with. As I said earlier, his is a company that grew out of tomato farming. It is currently concentrating heavily on the dairy sector, diversifying into foodstuffs, and is also heavily involved in development in south-west Sydney. He has indeed had a very wide corporate experience: Leppington Pastoral Company, the Oran Park raceway, greenfields development, Perich Property et cetera. But he has found time to play a larger role in the community. Charitable endeavours include the University of Western Sydney, the Cancer Health Research Foundation, the bushfire brigades in the Luddenham and Bringelly areas and prostate cancer research. He has also been heavily involved in a variety of community ventures such as local Rotary, the Regional Development Council of Sydney and the Urban Development Institute of Australia. As you might expect, he is also a member of the Property Council of Australia. However, what is interesting also about him besides his business success, diversification and acumen are some of the attitudes he displays. Damon Kitney quoted him in an article in The Australian on 25 October 25. On the question of development, he had this to say: I see a lot of people making mistakes in the development industry. They don't work with council. They just believe that what they're doing is right instead of listening. You have to listen to other people—the council has views, the state government has views. Don't be pig-headed and just do what you want. So that is an attitude which I think is very refreshing. I have this phenomenon in my own electorate. People purchase properties—religious groups and other groups. They purchase properties at a low price because they know that there are difficulties with the development, and then they start to politically organise the change of development rules afterwards. So I think that, from a person so successful in Australian corporate life who has grown from a poverty-stricken migrant family, that is very refreshing. The article makes the comment that despite this huge wealth, it is not displayed in ostentation in regard to private planes or the kinds of vehicles he drives. He says: Why would I want to move into Sydney when I have the Blue Mountains out there, I've made my money out there, the people have been good to us. I will never move to Sydney— because he lives in the outer suburban fringes. Ever. Ever. I don't believe in it. Living in the west also helps continue the family's farming tradition: One thing you can always say, we will be farmers all our lives. Never forget your grassroots So I want to put on the record my appreciation of his endeavours. There is a great sense of community consciousness in the Macarthur region, covering my own and Russell Matheson's seats, and it is indicated in this individual. It is once again Australia's construction after the Second World War by mass migration when the country needed infrastructure, when it needed people. That is what the governments of the time decided, and that is a good indication of what the outcome is. Petition: Citizenship 92 11:31 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan Today I take the opportunity to present a petition, with the principal petitioner being my wife, and it relates to a national security and immigration related matter. Since November 2013, I have made several speeches in the parliament about the need to hold people to account for the oath that they make at citizenship ceremonies. When you look at what is going on in the national security sphere and the number of Australians that, unfortunately, have made the mistake of going overseas to fight for terrorists or military or extremist causes, it is important to hold them to account. So the proposal that I put through these speeches and that I put to the government was the need to be able to revoke the citizenship—the second citizenship—of those that have taken up such causes. In July last year, July 2014, I put together a motion to talk about this issue, and that was well supported by a number of people on both sides of the chamber. At the same time, I also put a petition on the front bench of my office and also briefly put it up on social media as well. As a result of that, 701 people around the country, mainly in my electorate, had signed the petition. Unfortunately, due to the enthusiasm and the lack of experience, a number had just signed a blank piece of paper without the description of the petition at the top, and unfortunately they were ruled out. In any case, I am very pleased to be able to present a petition of 631 signatures—official signatures—but there were originally 701. I thank those people from both the electorate of Cowan and elsewhere around the country for their view on this and for being prepared to put their name to such a motion as well. Of course, members of the House would know that on Monday of last week—Monday, 23 February—in the PM's national security statement he determined that a number of policies would be adopted, and I am particularly pleased to see this proposal adopted as well. I do look forward to the technicalities and all the details being worked out so that this can be made law and again those people can be held to account. I will just remind the House that the petition said: This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That Australian Citizens have taken up arms for foreign military and extremist causes including, but not limited to, the Islamic State and by doing so they represent a threat to Australia and the safety of Australian citizens. We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to: Amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and take any and all action to allow the revocation of the status of Citizen for those who take up arms, provide material support for military/extremist causes or provide financial support for such causes, except where such action is at the direction or authorised by the Government of Australia. So I think that this is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate suggestion. I am very pleased that the government has taken it up. I once again thank everybody that has signed the petition. I would also just say again, as I have repeatedly reflected, that this should certainly apply not only to those that go away and take up arms or take up active support in foreign countries for these sorts of causes but also to those that take active steps, raising money or recruiting here in Australia. I endorse the petition. I present this petition to the chamber and thank everyone who has been involved with it. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That Australian Citizens have taken up arms for foreign military and extremist causes including, but not limited to, the Islamic State and by doing so they represent a threat to Australia and the safety of Australian citizens. We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to: Amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and take any and all action to allow the revocation of the status of Citizen for those who take up arms, provide material support for military/extremist causes or provide financial support for such causes, except where such action is at the direction or authorised by the Government of Australia. from 631 citizens Petition received. Copenhagen: Terrorist Attacks, National Security 93 11:35 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports My comments deal with a different aspect of the national security debate, particularly as it affects volunteers in Australia who are protecting institutions in my electorate and others, and the implications of the events that recently happened in Denmark. The Danish Prime Minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, led hundreds of mourners recently at the funeral of Dan Uzan, a Danish citizen who was one of two people killed in a shooting spree in Copenhagen just a few weeks ago. Security was tight at his funeral, the police out in force with sniffer dogs. I want to give him a name. Uzan was an individual—a giant of a man, six foot nine—who, in minus 10 degrees, stood outside the Copenhagen synagogue, protecting a party of 80 12-year-olds, a bat mitzvah. Two apparent drunks tried to get in. They got past the police with their machine guns. He refused to let them in; he refused to believe that they were not putting on an act, and his act of incredible bravery led to his being shot in the head by this terrorist and the police only then waking up themselves and being shot by these two individuals, who got away, one of them later to be shot and killed. The mother of the girl whose bat mitzvah was held that night said: We feel like Dan stopped the terrorist with his body. He was our hero even before this incident. He was a kind-hearted man, a good soul. Dan and the other guards who were there are the true heroes of this incident. That is what Mette Bentow said; she is the mother of Hannah, who was celebrating, as I said, her bat mitzvah with 80 other 12-year-old girls. She said that synagogue was protected by that hero, Dan Uzan. Also killed in that shooting spree in Copenhagen was Finn Norgaard, who was killed at the Copenhagen Cafe earlier. He was a Danish film director who produced documentaries for Danish television and in 2004 produced Boomerang Drengen—Boomerang Boy—about an Australian boy's dream of becoming a world boomerang champion. These events directly affected Australia. I wish the ABC had humanised the victims more, because there are thousands of people, every weekend and during the week, who stand outside Australian institutions, particularly Jewish institutions. They are volunteers who, like Dan Uzan, guard institutions from people like this, because of the security circumstances that we live. They do not have, unfortunately, armed police, as they do in Europe. Perhaps it is a good thing that the situation is not so bad in Australia that it demands it. But they have no-one to protect them, and I honour their work and understand their fear of the events that happened in those place. I think it is appalling that the ABC had on its Q&A program the execrable woman Margolyes, who, of all the actors in Australia, had to be brought on to Q&A to comment on international affairs. She who said, quite disgracefully on this program on Monday, that anti-Semitism is quite understandable. It is not understandable in any circumstances. The death of those people is not justifiable, Ms Margolyes. You are a disgrace, and the ABC is a disgrace for putting you on. Eighteen months ago, the Abbott opposition agreed with the then Labor government to continue the program of secure schools funding that I initiated with the previous government in 2007. I am very grateful that this funding has continued—and it has continued in my electorate to the extent of millions of dollars. It is absolutely necessary despite the blandishments and stupidities of Miriam Margolyes and the fools who put her on Q&A and who support her views. These events around the world directly affect us here in Australia. Can you imagine being an unarmed person standing outside the Elwood Synagogue, as they do, every week when I see them, a lovely couple of twins who live around the corner who look after their elderly mother, and their contribution to Australian society is to act as a volunteer to protect their fellow Australians in that institution. I honour them and I honour every person who does that kind of work that Dan Uzan did outside the Copenhagen Synagogue. Defence Force Pay 93 11:41 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert When the then Minister for Defence David Johnston rang me, he did not sound happy. He went on to tell me that the ADF pay deal had been struck and there would be a 1.5 per cent per year pay rise for the next three years. There was some trade-off as well when it came to leave and allowances. I had my say and I lost the argument; the decision was made. It is a team game here. I could have threatened to cross the floor or move to the cross benches but I did not. My leader Tony Abbott fronted the cameras and he said he wished it was not so but the mess we were left meant that everyone had to carry some of the load. He also said at the time that as soon as the budget position improved we would act on Defence pays. In a city like Townsville you do not have to go too far to meet someone who wears a uniform. While they will not publicly complain, they will tell you what they think in private. I also have a significant veteran population in my electorate. They said they were not happy with the pay deal but they would cop it sweet. What they could not understand was the loss of benefits. It had no economic impact—if it had an economic impact they could understand, but these did not. I went back to Minister Johnston and talked about it. I went to the PM and I spoke to him about it. He said the members for Solomon and Ryan, Natasha Griggs and Jane Prentice, had also raised the issue with him. He was able to reinstate the leave provisions immediately. I attended a rally at Townsville City Council forecourt organised by a former soldier who was also member of the ALP. There were a large number of ALP organisers and public sector union members there, and they were the ones making the most noise. When I pointed out that the last two years of Labor's ADF pay deal were below inflation, they booed me and howled me down. When I pointed out that the previous government had left Defence with the lowest defence spend since 1938, they howled me down. When I asked the organiser why he did not organise a rally then for any of those things, when Labor was in power, they howled me down. That is okay. That is their right. I went there because I owned the decision. I made my objections to the people who could control the issue and I got a very good hearing but I was not successful. Since then, whenever I met with the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Finance or the foreign minister—anyone I could talk to—I spoke about the need to get a better pay deal than the one we had for ADF personnel. I spoke to former and current officers, NCOs and the rank and file. One message came through to me loud and clear—we have a highly skilled and intelligent ADF. We do our best to provide for them with the best possible equipment but they told me that if we continued with the pays and allowances like we were, and governments past, present and future kept chipping away, we would lose good people. Recruitment of the best people will be harder and more difficult and then we will not need to provide the best equipment because we will not have the people with sufficient intelligence to use it. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is what came through to me the most. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the ministers for defence, both Johnston and Andrews, have never forgotten about this. It has never gone away. The Intergenerational Report being released today will show that the budget has improved and that we have been getting on with addressing Australia's budgetary problems. This proves a few things. Our budget has a spending issue and we are all part of the solution to get that right. But we also have a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who listen. We also have two Ministers for Defence, both Johnson and Andrews, who will listen to their backbench. We have MPs such as you, Madam Deputy Speaker Prentice, we have the member for Solomon, the member for Hughes and me—we live with, work with and represent our people. I owned this decision when it was first made, because I am part of a government that is facing challenges. I own this new decision because I, and every MP with Defence personnel in their seats, never stopped working for our communities. That is what we do in this place. I thank the House. Newcastle Electorate: Employment 94 11:45 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise today to share with the House the perilous state of employment in my electorate of Newcastle and to show how the actions of the Abbott Liberal government are making things worse. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics regional labour force data released last month showed that unemployment in Newcastle and Lake Macquarie had reached its highest level in more than a decade—10 per cent, more than double the rate when the Abbott Liberal government took office. We have not seen unemployment rates in Newcastle in double digits since 2003 when the now Prime Minister was Minister for Employment Services in the Howard government. Every week I field calls from distressed local employers telling me that they are having to let more people go—and there is no sign of it stopping. Just yesterday local shipbuilder Forgacs announced that they had been forced to tell more than 100 employees they have no job, with their entire workforce in danger of losing their jobs by Christmas. Last week, Downer EDI announced that 59 workers would lose their jobs from their Hunter operations. The week before, steel supplier Martensite Australia shut the doors to their Tomago operations, with another 20 jobs in the region gone. These are just a few of the large-scale losses that are being reported in the media, but we know that the detrimental impact and ramifications flow down and impact into the wider regional economy. Many smaller job losses are going largely unreported but they are no less damaging to the health and wellbeing of the workers and their families, who are affected. One of the most distressing factors for the workers losing their jobs—beyond the immediacy, of course, of losing their livelihood—is the lack of opportunity for employment in the near future. Losing your job is not liberating, as the Prime Minister may have us believe. It is a traumatic and often life-changing experience. Some in the Newcastle community are experiencing it for the third or fourth time. While not all job losses can be blamed on governments, both state and federal governments do have a role to play in creating the right economic conditions for employers to prosper and to operate with confidence for the future. On this front, the Abbott liberal government is failing. After 18 months of this government, we are yet to see a plan for Australian jobs or a plan for industry. The actions they have taken are creating further headaches for industry and investors. In Defence, they are sending vital naval shipbuilding work offshore with HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius to be replaced by ships built in Spain or South Korea. They continue to threaten to send submarine production the same way. The lifeline they did throw to Australian shipbuilders in June last year to construct 20 replacement patrol boats dangled perilously for nine months before the Minister for Defence made the announcement this morning to finally move to go to tender for these projects. But these delays are costing hundreds of workers their jobs. I again call on the Abbott Liberal government to treat workers with respect and to act in the national interest by committing to a long-term rolling build of our naval ships in Australia. There is no time to waste. Another area where jobs of the future could be created is the renewable energy sector. This is a large and successful industry in Newcastle, but again, government actions are hampering efforts. The industry has been struggling ever since the Prime Minister appointed a climate sceptic to review the Renewable Energy Target, in February 2014. In 2013, Australia was ranked in the top four most attractive places to invest in renewable energy, alongside the powerhouses of Germany, the US and China. Australia is now ranked 10th in that list. While worldwide investment in renewable energy grew by approximately 16 per cent in 2014, Australia's investment fell by nearly 90 per cent in the large-scale sector. The Liberal government's approach to renewable energy is costing jobs and undermining investment in Newcastle where researchers and innovators are delivering scientific world-leading breakthroughs. Rather than supress innovation, investment and employment, the Abbott government must end the uncertainty for this very important industry of the future. Committing to naval ship building and the renewable energy sector is the bare minimum that workers in Newcastle deserve and are entitled to. Until we see this commitment, and a genuine plan to support Australian jobs and industries, and particularly jobs and industries in my electorate of Newcastle, I will continue to stand in this parliament and fight for local jobs in my community of Newcastle. That is what my constituents elected me to do. Defence Force 95 11:50 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I rise today to put on record again the important contribution our Defence Force makes. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker Prentice, that this is something very dear to your heart as well. Yesterday we both welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement that we will increase the Australian Defence Force pay offer to two per cent per annum. The work performed by members of the Australian Defence Force is unique and crucial to our nation and our security. It is not only Defence Force personnel but their families—people like yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker—that face many challenges including frequent posting cycles and operational tours, to name a couple. I along with a number of my colleagues, such as the member for Herbert and indeed yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, lobbied to get this result. I thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence for listening to us and the electorate and committing to this pay increase. This news was well received by uniformed personnel in Solomon, and as soon as the announcement was made I started to receive calls from Defence members and families. I am sure Defence personnel will not ever forget that it was the previous Labor government that stripped the Defence Force budget to the bone. I have some more good news from the Abbott government. Yesterday we announced the proposed development of an $18 million project to construct a Multi User Barge Ramp Facility in Darwin. Defence is one of the key economic drivers of the Northern Territory's economy and Darwin's Defence presence numbers over 6,000 service men and women. Together with their families, this represents nearly 14,000 people. An $18 million Multi User Barge Ramp Facility is a smart investment for Defence. The development of defence infrastructure across the Top End that also has a use for commercial operators is contributing to the development of the north. Chief Minister Adam Giles is working closely with the Abbott government and Defence to ensure the territory is key to the placement of future Australian Defence Force posture. The Australian Defence Force has contributed to jobs and infrastructure over many years and I expect, with the release of the defence white paper, that the Northern Territory will be reaffirmed as the key strategic position for the Australian Defence Force. The Australian Defence Force has a long history in the territory. RAAF Base Darwin became operational in June 1940. In 1992 1st Brigade was relocated to Robertson Barracks. HMAS Coonawarra is home to about 60 per cent of Australia's patrol boat fleet. Together with Northern Command and Customs the Australian Defence Force plays a key role in our border protection. The United States Marines have had a small but growing presence in Darwin and their numbers are expected to grow to 2,500 by 2018. This year Exercise Talisman Sabre will occur across the top end of Australia from Darwin around to Rockhampton. Altogether nearly 15,000 service men and women from a number of countries will descend on training areas across the country. Recently, the US Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greenert, publicly stated that a joint US-Australian Defence Force study was being conducted to consider basing US naval ships in key locations around Australia, and Darwin to me is an obvious choice. Given our location, growing port and infrastructure and the significant growth in heavy engineering and maritime industry, Darwin is the logical location for the Australian Defence Force, particularly the Navy, to base itself in future years. I am also looking forward to once again participating in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program This program, as you know, provides an intimate firsthand experience of the challenges of service life and deployment. As the new chair of the coalition backbench policy committee on defence and veteran's affairs, I take this appointment very seriously and will use it to continue to advocate for the thousands of Australian Defence Force members and their families, particularly in my electorate of Solomon. Madam Deputy Speaker Prentice, like you and the Member for Herbert, we are great supporters of the Australian Defence Force and, most importantly, the personnel and families of the Australian Defence Force in our electorates. Renewable Energy 96 11:56 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide I rise today to put on the record my concern, and the concern of many residents of Adelaide, about the current state of the renewable energy sector in Australia. I raise this matter because it is of critical importance to our nation and to our environment. But it is particularly important to my state of South Australia. I know that the electorate that I am lucky enough to represent here is made up of citizens who are particularly concerned about these issues. We know that the sector has been hit hard by the uncertainty and chaos that has been created since the Abbott government was elected. It is incredibly unfortunate. South Australia has led not just the nation but, in many regards, the world when it comes to the development of renewable energy. In fact, we know that renewable energy in South Australia has now reached the point where there are days when more than 100 per cent of our state's electricity needs are now met by wind power—which is a huge achievement and something that our state government has worked very hard, along with the previous federal government, to help achieve. But of course we know that all of that renewable energy, all of that investment and all of the jobs that go along with it, is threatened by this government walking away from this sector. We know that in 2007 there were only 7,400 households across the whole of Australia that had solar panels. When we left government, there were 1.2 million. That is an absolutely extraordinary turnaround. Of course it means much for our energy sector, but it also means a great deal for the employment opportunities—jobs for the future—that were being created here in Australia. There is something that this parliament needs to take note of and that is that at the very same time that our nation is now going backwards and remaining stagnant when it comes to renewable energy, the rest of the world is advancing in leaps and bounds. We know during the same period over which we have seen it drop in Australia, renewable energy investment around the world last year climbed by 16 per cent—a global increase of 16 per cent. In many countries, particularly many of our close partners, investment growth in renewables was even higher. In China there was an increase in renewable energy investment of 32 per cent last year. In Japan it rose by about a quarter. Contrast that with what happened in Australia last year. Against that pattern, against the tide, against the direction that the rest of the world was running in, in Australia last year's investment in renewable energy dropped by 88 per cent—and, it should be said, the projects which did continue, that made up the remaining 12 per cent, are projects that only went ahead because they had the support of agencies that we on this side of the House fought to prevent the government's attempted abolition of. We know that we have gone backwards, we know that this is impacting on our energy sector, but we also know that this is impacting on the sort of jobs that we want to be creating. If, like me, you come from an area where we have significant struggles with the manufacturing sector and with the employment opportunities of the future, then you know it is not the time to be walking away from renewable energy, which the rest of the world is out there embracing. I rise today to plead with the Abbott government to not take Australia backwards when it comes to renewable energy, to not turn our backs on the employment opportunities which arise from wind, solar and renewable energy, and indeed to recognise that this is an industry of the future. It is an industry that should be supported by this parliament, it is an industry that should be invested in and it is an industry that deserves to have the certainty that it did have under the Renewable Energy Target, which has now been placed in absolute and utter chaos by a government that do not know what their policies is or where they stand, a government who are throwing away Australian jobs as they throw away Australian renewable energy opportunities because of their own lack of vision. La Trobe Electorate: Community Awards 97 12:01 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I have the great privilege of recognising those in my community who have received the La Trobe Community Awards. On Saturday 18 October, I had the privilege of hosting the inaugural La Trobe Community Awards. The awards were designed to acknowledge the quiet achievers, volunteers in the seat of La Trobe. The people nominated simply amaze me with their dedication and commitment and the countless volunteer hours they spend every day helping the volunteer organisation they are involved with. It was a very difficult job to determine who would receive the La Trobe Community Medallion, and in actual fact it was a tie. The first medallion went to someone I have known for many years, Gwen Homer, who, over a 65-year period, has volunteered with the Sassafras-Ferny Creek Fire Brigade, the Dandenong Ranges Fire Brigade Group's Ladies Auxiliary, the Ferny Creek Tennis Club and even the local church—which, can I say, my mother also attends. Gwen has been a willing supporter, never missing an opportunity to bake a cake or collect donations wherever she can, and she has become an integral part of the local CFA community. Over the years, Gwen has helped out with the Ferny Creek Tennis Club, where she has been a member since 1949—which is quite an amazing effort—helping the membership grow from 40 to 300. Her generosity has not stopped there, with Gwen also being a valued member of the Ewing Memorial Uniting Church—creating beautiful floral displays and serving as the treasurer of the Uniting Church Fellowship Group. Gwen is known by her community as a selfless and loving community member. The second La Trobe Community Medallion went to somebody who is with the Hills Autism and Special Needs Support Group, who also volunteers with both Emerald Community House and Belgrave South Community House and is the founder of the We Made It group. Sharyn Thomas conducts monthly mothers' group meetings and is the convener of many special needs functions and events throughout the year. Sharyn's service to the community does not stop there; she also volunteers her time to the Emerald and Belgrave South community houses, where she runs weekly cooking classes for people with special needs. I congratulate Sharyn for that. These programs assist people with special needs to participate in daily living skills to help with their independence, along with assisting with numeracy and literacy skills. Sharyn is the founder of the group We Made It. Craft items are made by people affected by autism or special needs, and they are then sold at the Emerald market craft store. Sharyn's work for and dedication to people with special needs and autism is an inspiration to everyone right across the country. I would like to mention other community awards recipients. Beryl Bartacek has worked with Nobelius Heritage Park and Emerald Museum for close to 20 years. Ray Boatman has been a valued member and meeting convenor of the Dandenong Ranges Branch of the National Trust for many years. Eric Chaplin has been the President of the Upper Beaconsfield RSL for the past 15 years and a member for the past 30 years. Marina Cook has been a volunteer at the Coonara Community House for eight years. Geoff Davidson is respected for his service in the Royal Australian Navy since 1951 and over the years has been a member for a wide variety of community organisations. Margaret Edgar has contributed countless hours assisting children with the environmental program at Maranatha Christian School. Anne Elizabeth has become a great champion for her local community and environment, being an active member of six local community groups. Emily Fitzgerald has been a volunteer at the Coonara Community House for nine years, since the age of 14. It was great to see a number of young people receiving awards. Brady Graham from Berwick Grammar School has proven to be a dedicated and generous young community leader. Jess Hardy has been a volunteer at the Coonara Community House since she was 14-years-old, and during the last eight years she has been volunteering and doing an amazing job in the local community, and assisting with establishing Girls Together. Multiculturalism 97 12:06 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway One of the most wonderful things about our multicultural society is that we have the opportunity to share in a number of cultural activities that are becoming fixtures on the broader Australian calendar and one of those is Holi. On the eve of Holi I would like to send my very best wishes to everyone for whom this is an extremely special occasion. It is an exciting occasion not only for Hindus but also for the wider community. It was originally a celebration of the changing of the seasons and the transition from the cold of winter to the colour of spring; hence, one of the graphic associations of Holi is of course the throwing of coloured powder at one another, and generally singing and dancing. How wonderful it is that the Australian story is driven by so many different cultures of the world. This diversity is a tremendous value to our country. It builds our prosperity. It reinforces our ties with the subcontinent and with South Asia in particular. I will be joining a lot of the festivities this weekend, including at North Parramatta and The Ponds in my electorate. I think it is wonderful that these festivals have devolved to a much more suburban level on many occasions so that we have local communities having a greater opportunity to be involved. While I talk about celebrating diversity, I believe it is important to recognise a couple of disturbing trends that have become apparent in our society and what a minority are doing to attempt to undermine this spirit and the benefits of multiculturalism in this country. On 28 February The Sydney Morning Herald carried a headline 'Australian Sikhs say abuse on the rise as they cop Anti-Muslim sentiment'. Indeed, I was aware of this long before it became news in The Sydney Morning Herald. There were stories of gurudwaras being attacked; members of the Australian Sikh Association approached me about rises in attacks and incidents on their members and within my own community. In my community, in the Blacktown local government area, Singh is the most common surname. I live down the road from the Sikh gurudwara. Most of my street is of Sikh origin. This is extremely disturbing, and I think it should be placed on the record how unacceptable it is for people to think it is okay to treat fellow Australian citizens with such disregard. One of the quotes here in The Sydney Morning Herald is from a Mr Singh, who is the President of Turbans for Australia. Mr Singh's comments are greatly disturbing. He says that it has become 'pretty much an everyday thing' for Sikhs to have abuse hurled at them. He said they cop 'the brunt of anti-Islamic sentiment'; people confuse wearing the turban with being Muslim. Sikhism is one of the fastest-growing populations in Australia and I want to commend the Australian Sikh Association and the Sikh community overall, for doing so much to open up their religion and their festivities—and their Gurudwaras through open days. Indeed, there will be an open day in Glenwood next month, and I look forward to attending that. Sikhism has a great place in the history of Australia, as my colleague the member for Chifley will attest. Earlier this year I visited the gurudwara in Woolgoolga up near Coffs Harbour. Sikhism has a tremendous story not only through rural participation there around the Coffs Harbour region, but also comprising a large part of Western Sydney. The other issue I want to mention—again, this is something I was aware of, long before it was reported—is the harassment of Muslim women being on the rise. There is a quote similar to the one I mentioned about some Sikhs thinking this was normal behaviour. It is in an article from 24 February, in The Age, about a young girl who had been abused for wearing a headscarf. Her mother said it was her son who told of the incident that happened to his sister. The article said: When she asked her daughter about it the teenager said she had not mentioned it straight away because she "thought it was normal" to be singled out because of her headscarf. This is notnormal! It is absolutely unacceptable. The Migration Council of Australia today, in the Economic impact of migration, reflects that multiculturalism and migration itself is a positive thing for Australia. It is positive in an economic sense, it is positive in a community sense and such evidence based policy for migration, and supporting multiculturalism as a positive thing for Australia, should be welcomed. I commend Carla Wilshire and the Migration Council for their excellent report. 12:11 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I commend the member for Greenway on her contribution—sentiments I echo completely. Modern, efficient infrastructure is important and enables Australia—particularly the part of Australia that I represent—to reach full productivity and efficiency. The Abbott-Truss government has been committed to infrastructure; indeed, it has had a $50 billion infrastructure package. There are two programs I will speak about. One is the inland rail—the Melbourne to Brisbane rail line—which will traverse three states. It will link not only Melbourne and Brisbane but also Brisbane and Perth, and Adelaide and Darwin. It will be the missing link in a truly continental rail system. Last year, Minister Truss appointed the former infrastructure minister in the Howard government, John Anderson, to head an implementation committee. I am pleased to say that I have been heavily involved in that process—as that committee has engaged with communities, freight companies, transport companies and local government throughout the corridor—in coming up with the initial report. I understand that report will be completed before too much longer and presented to the minister. We are starting to see advertising for expressions of interest in initial works to be undertaken in parts of this corridor. Rail will only be part of this puzzle. We are seeing the emergence of heavy-mass vehicles and the importance of interconnectivity between the road and rail system. We are seeing good examples around the township of Parkes, where there is an intermodal transport hub set up. Trains leave Parkes and head to Perth on a regular basis—double-stack container trains that are now taking over 80 per cent of the freight between Sydney and Perth, on rail, whereas in other major freight routes the ratio is much less than that. I was very pleased to have the Deputy Prime Minister in my electorate a couple of weeks ago. We met up with the New South Wales roads minister, Duncan Gay, the Deputy Premier and my local colleague at Dubbo, Troy Grant, to announce funding for roads, under the heavy vehicle and safety productivity round, and also for the Bridges Renewal program. These programs will enable an increase in the efficiency and safety with which we can deliver our freight task. I can give you an example: the money that has gone towards the $1.146 million project in Gwydir Shire—my old shire, where I was formerly mayor, and where I can proudly say my brother is now the mayor. The upgrade of Mosquito Creek Road, which goes to a large quarry, is of benefit to not only the businesses that operate out of that quarry but the safety of the general community. Also, that quarry provides metal for road and rail for pretty well all of north-west New South Wales. The sealing of this road will enable road train access to this quarry. It will cut down the number of truck movements and reduce dust and other safety issues. That is just an example of where infrastructure spending improves not only productivity but also safety. So we are getting on with the job of rolling out infrastructure. It is the backbone that drives our nation. Chifley Electorate: Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre 99 12:16 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I rise to speak about the Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre, which has operated successfully in our area out of a building in the shopping district of Rooty Hill since 1997. It handles more than 1,100 cases a year, two-thirds with new clients. The centre itself services 44 of the Blacktown LGA's 48 suburbs—it is astounding the number of suburbs it helps out—as well as 13 suburbs of the Penrith LGA. That is a catchment of close to 400,000 people. Last year alone it gave over-the-phone advice on 1,300 matters and saw 478 clients face to face. It represented those clients in Civil and Administrative Tribunal, local court, Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and Fair Work Commission matters, so it is doing a wide range of things. In its early years the centre became so successful on a two to three day roster—the equivalent of 1½ solicitors—it was totally overwhelmed with cases. The legal assistance sector, I hate to admit and I am saddened to hear, is being subjected to $43 million in cuts over the forward estimates—an astounding and terrible figure. There is no funding certainty for community legal centres beyond that. This centre does not operate on government funding alone. It has had support from the corporate sector. In 2001 Blake Dawson Waldron, now known as Ashurst, felt it would be in the community's best interest that the Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre have its doors open more days. For almost 10 years Ashurst offered their services free of charge to clients—a tremendous example of corporate Australia pitching in in an area of need. They based themselves there full time and were able to operate in the service there. Eventually they had to withdraw their full-time presence but—Member for Shortland, you may be interested in knowing—they still continue to provide $25,000 a year, which is astounding in itself. Historically, the centre has been funded by the federal government with recurrent funding of $220,000. In an area of high need, this centre works miracles, having the fifth lowest level of funding compared to others. By comparison, the Hunter Community Legal Centre gets $581,000 and our neighbouring Macquarie Legal Centre nearly $500,000. I am proud to say that the former Labor government signed a deed guaranteeing $50,000 per year for three years. But after just one year it was cancelled by the coalition. That is a $100,000 loss. Ms Hall 83N Absolutely shameful! Mr Husic 91219 It absolutely is a shame, Member for Shortland, because it has been a massive hit. It would have provided one solicitor working three days a week, and that funding should and must be restored. To make matters worse, the recurrent funding to the community legal centres around the nation, as I said, is subject to savage cuts. The value of this service, I would say, cannot be measured in dollars alone because it is helping maintain social cohesion when families are in trouble and they cannot afford to pay for legal advice or representation. If you consider combined state and federal funding for the legal centres, there are a lot of others that get a lot more than this centre, yet this centre is potentially being squeezed out from an area of high need—after 18 years of high-quality service. It is certainly punching above its weight. We need this federal government to support it as a matter of equity, to ensure that people that are on low incomes are not denied access to legal representation. I want to turn to another matter. Be it TAFE or private providers, we need people supporting vocational education in this country. I am happy either way, whether it is TAFE or private providers that are doing it. I, like many others, am keen to see more young people trained up for the work force. Given this, you can imagine my concern when I witnessed disturbing allegations this week on The 7.30 Report levelled at Evocca College's Mount Druitt campus. A few years ago, I was pleased to be involved in the launch of Evocca, and I do believe in the work that they do. They are providing an important service. Evocca is one of the nation's biggest trainers and it is alleged to have undertaken some fairly unscrupulous practices when it comes to signing up students who, ultimately, may not graduate. Featured in this story this week was the Mount Druitt campus, which was alleged to have lured students into training courses by standing in shopping centres and handing over laptop computers and iPads. Some people attempted to sell those iPads at local pawn-broking shops. I am very concerned about these allegations. I think they undermine faith and confidence in the private training provider system, which I think is an important platform. I call on Evocca to thoroughly investigate these claims, attend to the concerns raised and make sure that students in our area get the quality education they deserve. World Plumbing Day 100 12:21 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Today I rise to talk about World Plumbing Day, which is on 11 March. As Australians, we are members of what is known as the consumer class. We are a nation that has the ability to mine raw materials and consume goods and services, both man-made and from the land. As our country develops, so too does our level of consumption. To paint a picture for members, so that you understand our appetite for consumption, worldwide private consumption expenditure—which is the amount spent on goods and services at the household level—topped US$20 trillion in 2000, which was a fourfold increase from 1960, according to the Worldwatch Institute. While we as a nation are constantly feeding this appetite, taking natural resources from the earth to do so, we forget that there are as many as 2.8 billion people on the planet who struggle to survive on less than $2 a day. Although I am sure members would agree that this is a startling statistic, this global inequity is reflected not just in our consumption of goods and services; it is also reflected in our consumption of natural resources. According to the UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water 2014, there are 2.5 billion people who lack access to improved sanitation, 1 billion people who still practice open defecation, 748 million people who lack access to improved drinking water and 1.8 billion people who use a source of drinking water that is faecally contaminated. Australia commits millions of dollars in foreign aid every year to a large number of third world countries to assist with the provision of clean drinking water, creating a sanitary environment and providing those other things Australians take for granted such as shelter and education. Because of the first world infrastructure our country has developed, it is often easy to forget how lucky we are. We turn on our taps and we have clean drinking water, or we flush our toilets and our waste is removed—once again creating a sanitary environment. What Australians need to remember is that clean water is not a luxury and that we as a global community need to work together to preserve this important resource. For those members who are not aware, 11 March is World Plumbing Day, which is an annual celebration to recognise the significant role the plumbing industry plays in ensuring that public health is maintained, as well as the health of our environment. It is an international event which was established by the World Plumbing Council in 2010. As the council states on their website, it was established to: …educate the general public about the work the plumbing industry performs to conserve the world's overstretched sources of drinking water… This provision of safe water and sanitation is something we all need to be conscious of, and I congratulate the World Plumbing Council for the work they have done to date in raising awareness of this important issue. I also note the contribution of the Master Plumbers and Gasfitters in Western Australia, and plumbers everywhere, for the work they do every day to ensure we continue to enjoy the high standard of living that we have. I first learnt about the World Plumbing Day from my good friend Stuart Henry, who was the Liberal member for Hasluck from October 2004 to November 2007. He was then overtaken by my fellow colleague Ken Wyatt, who was elected to this place in 2010. The electorate of Hasluck borders my electorate of Swan, so Ken and I take a keen interest in what is happening in each other's patch. I learnt a lot from Stuart during my own election to this place and when he was retiring, and it was great of him to alert me about the World Plumbing Day. These days, along with many other organisations he is part of, Stuart is on the secretariat of the World Plumbing Council and has worked hard to bring this annual World Plumbing Day event to the attention of members and to the attention of the community. To celebrate this event, to continue raising awareness of the vital role plumbers play in preserving our drinking water, plumbing organisations around the world will be undertaking a range of activities. I encourage all members to get involved if they have the opportunity—even the member for Grayndler could get involved if he so wished. What many people do not know is that the estimated total amount of fresh water available on our globe is about 35 million cubic kilolitres, but it is reported that less than one per cent of this is good for human consumption. So while water may surround us, that does not mean it is in abundance. That is why a key focus of the plumbing industry is highlighting water re-use in homes and businesses. This includes such concepts as rainwater harvesting, greywater systems and sewage recycling, while processes such as desalination, where salt water is converted to drinkable fresh water, are always being developed. The key here is trying to strike the right balance between cost, energy consumption and conservation in order to increase world water efficiency and conservation. With that in mind, I encourage members in this place to expand the work of the council by promoting the following everyday concepts to their constituents: automatically shutting off taps, ensuring leaks are attended to promptly, using minimum water for our daily needs and harvesting rainwater. I also encourage them to show their support for the council and plumbers around the world by promoting World Plumbing Day on March 11. Canterbury Hurlstone Park RSL Club 101 12:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Next Wednesday I will have the honour of cutting the ribbon at the launch of a new trigeneration energy system at Canterbury Hurlstone Park RSL Club. This was funded with a grant of over $580,000 from the former Australian Labor government. Trigeneration is the simultaneous production of three forms of energy—electricity, heating and cooling—from a single system. It is nearly three times more energy efficient than a coal fired power station. This will cut the energy costs for this local community based club by up to $185,000 every year. It will have significant benefits for the environment. It will reduce carbon emissions by 1,590 tons per annum. This it the equivalent, this one plant, of taking more than 350 cars a year off the road. The expected return on investment for the trigeneration system is 35 per cent per annum. This is good investment—good investment in our environment and good investment in improving the economic capacity of Canterbury Hurlstone Park RSL Club. This is a club, like many other RSLs, that makes an enormous contribution to the local community, whether it be hosting schools, such as Ashbury Public School—I attended the presentation day there last year—whether it be sponsoring local sporting organisations such as Hurlstone Park Wanderers Football Club or Summer Hill Cricket Club, or whether it be putting money back into the community for junior sport. This club also was the venue, appropriately, given the impact on climate change and reducing omissions of this trigeneration energy system, of a climate change forum that I hosted last year with Labor's climate change spokesperson, Mark Butler, and with Amanda McKenzie, the CEO of the Climate Council. It was attended by about 300 people who participated in a discussion about how we could have an impact locally, as well as about the broader implications of climate change for our way of life into the future. The club itself anticipates complete cost recovery from the trigeneration system within four years. One of the best functions it has been my honour to attend was held last year as part of the lead-in for the Anzac Centenary commemorations. The main speaker was Brendan Nelson, who is now, of course, in charge of the Australian War Memorial. There were representatives of local schools and local community based organisations, as well as veterans and families themselves. It was a great example of the role that a club can play in harnessing community capacity, in making sure that we recognise our history. In particular, this year we are recognising the sacrifice made by those brave men and women in our Defence Force who defended our nation and suffered such dreadful losses during World War I and during engagements ever since. Our thoughts are also with our Defence Force members who continue to serve us, at risk to themselves, in theatres such as Afghanistan today. This is a great project. It is great management by the Canterbury Hurlstone Park RSL Club. I pay tribute to them for their vision and I look forward to participating in this event next Wednesday. Trade Unions 101 12:31 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I want to speak today about the union movement. I have been a member of a union in the past—the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. When I was 21, first job out of university, I worked in a print factory and had the union ticket. I also was a member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the journalists union, when I worked for newspapers. My father was a member of the Federated Clerks Union. My grandfather on my mother's side was a member of the dockworkers union in Glasgow, and I do not know you can get any more union than that. So there is union in my family history. Unions do serve a role. Here is the 'but': they have lost their way. They have now become an activist and fundraising arm purely for the Labor Party, and we see little from the union movement other than that. Yesterday, in their 4 March protest, they were rebels without a cause. They had to 'march for' because the date was 'March 4', and then they had to make up what they were marching for. It was more about what they were marching against. They gathered outside my office. A hundred were expected; they were flat-out getting half of that there. But they were marching against things like unfair workplace contracts, potential changes to the minimum wage and potential changes to penalty rates. Well, no-one in this parliament is in favour of unfair workplace contracts. The Prime Minister actually said in the press last week: We are not going to legislate the minimum wage or penalty rates. Nobody wants to see a lower wage country so that is not on our agenda. I can assure I support the Prime Minister's motions. Further, I can assure you, as I said, I do not support unfair contracts in the workplace. Actually, the labour movement, the union movement, would do well to note that the Leader of the Labor Party, when he was the minister responsible, put in the act that the Fair Work Commission would have to do a four-yearly review of modern awards and that one of the things they would need to review was penalty rates. So, if there is someone responsible for any look into penalty rates, it is the Leader of the Labor Party. Unions have lost their way. They were out there supporting the carbon tax under the previous government, while businesses were struggling and having to let workers go. Infamously, the AWU leader at the time said that they would come out against it if one job was lost. I know plenty of local businesses that had to let workers go because of the increased cost of electricity during that period, and the AWU still supported it. The CFMEU, the mine workers union, actually donated substantial amounts of money to the organisation GetUp!, and this organisation campaigns against the sector that employs them. Crazy stuff! They make excuses: 'Oh, that was the building division.' Too bad. They should have extricated themselves from that union when that payment was made. Workers' money is going to the unions, going to organisations like GetUp!, which are cutting their own throats. It is crazy stuff. The litmus test for the union movement is this: forget protesting outside my office about things which are not going to happen and actually take up the cudgel and support jobs with me. I am pushing for the Abbot Point project, something that will create 650 jobs for their members who are out of work. It will create business opportunities and create extra indirect jobs through that. Support the approval process for the Abbot Point port expansion which the state government announced. If we can get that going, we can get jobs and we can get increased wages. That is something that the union movement should be for. It is being opposed at the moment because we are going to put some spoil on a swampland. But that swampland was only created back in the 1950s by duck hunters. They diverted watercourses onto a dry patch of land to create a wetland so they could shoot ducks. That is the fact and any local will tell you that, including the Mayor of the Burdekin Shire Council, who was one of those instrumental in changing the watercourse. That is what the argument against the Abbot Point project is, in the main. It is a crazy argument when there are 650 direct jobs in the balance and many more throughout the Galilee Basin. If union support is not forthcoming, I will be talking to the responsible ministers about democratising the union movement, deregulating the union movement and allowing new unions to set up which are going to do something for the workers. I will praise a local. A Labor Party member in my electorate by the name of Dennis Bailey has gone out and set up a group called Labor for Abbot Point. There are union members who are backing that. But the unions themselves have not said anything. They have been silent about Abbot Point. Do not be silent! Our region's future depends on this, jobs depend on this and wages depend on it. Do something productive for workers. Union movement, please stand up and be counted on the Abbot Point battle. O'Neill, Ms Liz 102 12:36 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra This Saturday, 7 March, is the eighth anniversary of the death of a very dear friend of mine, Liz O'Neill. Liz was killed in the crash of Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. She was posted to the Australian Embassy in Jakarta in 2003 and unfortunately she was on that fateful flight that took a number of Australian and Indonesian lives as part of their service to their nation in supporting a ministerial visit. Prior to her passing, Liz had experienced some real horrors in her life. She was involved in providing help to the families of those who were injured and killed in the Bali tragedies in 2002 and again in 2005. She worked to help keep peace in Bougainville and she died serving our country. I would like to read some lines from her obituary to give you an idea about this wonderful woman, this woman who we so dearly miss, particularly at this time of the year, and who served our country so well. Liz was born in Brisbane to Lisa and Keith O'Neill. Her obituary said: As the youngest of five children, she realised the importance of standing out from the crowd. Her opinions, like her life, were large and she was usually eager to air them … She was a very opinionated young woman! It continued: Her father, a soldier, left for Vietnam as commanding officer, 8th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, when O'Neill was eight months old. The army postings ended with the family settling in Sydney, where she attended school at Kincoppal, Rose Bay. She excelled academically and became an accomplished viola player and admirer of the early works of David Bowie … The family was devoutly Catholic and O'Neill developed a keen sense of social responsibility from her mother, who was committed to her local parish of St Canice's, Elizabeth Bay … This is where Liz's memorial service was held. Her mother also worked, as it said in Liz's obituary, with the poor and homeless around Kings Cross. It went on: O'Neill studied arts at Sydney University, at the same time working in a chocolate shop in Double Bay … Older sister Mary died of a brain aneurism during O'Neill's first year at university and, in many respects, a sadness hung over her studies. When she finished she worked for a Catholic refugee group and spent time in camps in Hong Kong. The reconnection with her church and the values of care, compassion and service drove her ultimate choice of career, after she earned a master's degree in communications at the University of Technology, Sydney. She moved to Canberra, joined the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 1994— which is when I met her— and was posted to Tokyo in 1996. Liz O'Neill was an extraordinary woman and she typifies all the public servants who I knew over my decade-long career in the public service. Public servants are subject to much derision from all quarters of Australian life. I am always baffled as to why that is so. They are servants of democracy, they are people who have chosen a career to serve our nation, to serve others, and this typifies the public servants that I know. Like Liz, they are smart; like Liz, they are committed; like Liz, they are highly educated; like Liz, they are altruistic; like Liz, they are keen to make a difference and they are keen to serve our nation, be it here in Australia or be it overseas. Liz was always keen to serve our nation here, but she was particularly keen to advance and be an ambassador for Australia overseas. As I said, I met Liz in 1994 when she started working at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and she became a very close friend. Years later, my husband Chris and I were incredibly humbled to be asked to be the godparents of her daughter Lucinda. In that flight, three other Australians were also killed. They were also public servants—Australian Federal Police officers Mark Scott and Brice Steele and an AusAID official, Allison Sudradjat. There was also a journalist from The Australian Financial Review, Morgan Mellish. As I said, these people were servants of democracy, they wanted to serve our nation overseas, they died in the best way possible in terms of giving back to their nation and serving the democratically elected representatives of our nation. May they rest in peace, we will remember them, and to my dear friend Lizzie, I miss you terribly. Licensed Post Offices 103 12:41 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons There are 49 licensed post offices, or LPOs, in my electorate of Lyons, the largest electorate in the state of Tasmania. They are all country post offices and they have all struggled to survive for the past two decades since licenses were issued to private contractors to run these essential regional small businesses. They have struggled not because of the quality of the service that they provide but rather because of the income available to them and over which they have no control at all. The money from stamp sales is passed back to LPOs by Australia Post and influences a range of other payments that they receive from Australia Post. Since 1993, the cost of stamps simply has not kept pace with inflation. Australians are sending fewer letters by mail, so LPO operators in my neck of the woods have welcomed the proposed reforms to Australia Post, announced this week in parliament by the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull. Westbury post office proprietor Bob Richardson, with whom I met a couple of weeks ago to discuss these very issues along with my colleague Senator Abetz, suggested that the proposed increase in the price of stamps from 70c to $1 would provide the means, expected to be roughly around $20,000 on average per year to an LPO, to make these country post offices more viable. Total payments from Australia Post for stamps at the moment amount to around $70,000 gross a year, from which the small business then has to deduct all its costs like rent, power, plant and equipment. The increased income is most welcome. Bicheno post office proprietor Subi Mead suggests she recorded a taxable income last year of $40,000 last financial year. Mr Broadbent MT4 I love Bicheno. Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 It is a beautiful part of the world. That income level is completely unsustainable. Many family post offices absolutely need to see partners go out into the workforce because the business simply cannot sustain two people. The licensed post offices in my electorate of Lyons are valued and are important. Evandale LPO proprietors Carol and Jim Brown argue these reforms will not come soon enough and her customers are not upset at all about the prospect of paying $1 for stamps. These sentiments will be shared by post offices providing a service in remote places across my electorate, from Nubeena on the Tasman Peninsula—if you have not been there, member for McMillan, I suggest you go; it is another beautiful part of my electorate—to Ouse in the Central Highlands, to Mathinna in the north-east of the state. So I welcome the measured approach that Australia Post has taken to try and claw back a major decline in its core business of providing services around the country. Sixty per cent of LPOs nationally are located in regional Australia. These reforms are essential to ensure that they remain open in country communities. It demonstrates quite clearly how our government is looking to support small businesses. After the previous government had, I think, six ministers responsible for small business, we have, I suggest, the best small business minister this nation has ever had, in the form of Minister Billson. The work he has done around franchisees, allowing franchisees to have a more equal relationship with franchisors, is welcomed. More recently, the Food and Grocery Industry Code of Conduct to support suppliers, particularly those supplying the big supermarkets in this country, is another signal that this government values small businesses. They are the lifeblood of regional Australia in particular, and we will continue to find ways to make sure that these important businesses—drivers of prosperity and employers of local people in local communities—are supported. Privatisation, Vocational Education and Training 104 12:46 Ms HALL 83N Shortland This morning I rise to put on the record my strong opposition to privatisation—in particular, to the privatisation of our electricity network in New South Wales. The Baird government is waging an assault on the electricity industry in New South Wales. I strongly oppose the privatisation of those electricity assets, as does the leader of the opposition in New South Wales, Luke Foley. Luke Foley has been very strong in maintaining public ownership and public operation of the electricity network. I stood behind him and protested against the sale of electricity, even when there were moves by a Labor government to privatise electricity. Luke is very strong on anti-privatisation of our electricity network, because Luke knows what I know: it is currently returning $1 billion a year to the state, and when it is sold that return will no longer be there. Let's look at selling it for $13 billion for Mike Baird's plan A—I might add that he does not have a plan B—to build infrastructure in selected areas throughout New South Wales. I am sure that Shortland electorate voters will not benefit from Mike Baird's sell-off of our public assets, just as they will not benefit if he decides to privatise Newcastle Buses. You only have to look to the Central Coast to see what a privatised bus service offers people in that area in comparison to the publicly run bus service in the Hunter. I strongly oppose the privatisation of electricity and, as I said, Luke Foley has been one of the strongest voices over a number of years opposing the privatisation of electricity. It is not something that he has come to in recent times. The other area that I would like to put on the record is one that I spoke about in the House this week: vocational education. Mike Baird's Smart and Skilled has led to the sacking of 1,100 teachers and support staff. It has cancelled vital courses and it has increased TAFE fees, making it harder for those people that are out of work to get the skills that they need to get back into work. Instead of dismantling our TAFE system, as Mike Baird and the Liberal Party want to do, and privatising vocational education, we need to focus on how we can improve vocational education to support the needs of young people leaving school. Labor will use its first term to turn around Mike Baird's attack on TAFE. Since coming to power, Mike Baird and the Liberal Party have cut $1.7 billion from education—$1.7 billion is what is coming in from electricity, I might add, and they have cut that from education. They have sacked the teachers, as I mentioned, cut courses and drastically increased fees. Youth unemployment has increased by 17 per cent in some areas and is very high in my own area. These numbers are unacceptable. In my local area, they have sold off the port, and now we are not getting the income there. That was a vital asset. In my own area, they are building a public-private partnership. The hospital at Maitland is going to have a strong private component. What I would say to Mike Baird is: remember Port Macquarie Hospital, a public-private partnership built that hospital, and Labor had to come to the rescue and bring it back into public ownership. I oppose privatisation. Luke Foley and the Labor Party oppose privatisation, and we will work to stop it in New South Wales. Parliamentary Friends of Prostate Cancer Awareness Group 104 12:51 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell I am pleased to announce the formation of the Parliamentary Friends of Prostate Cancer Awareness Group. This bipartisan group is co-chaired by myself and the Hon. Jason Clare MP, federal member for Blaxland. The whole purpose of the group is to raise awareness of prostate cancer, which, sadly, claims the lives of over 3,000 Australian men each year. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers diagnosed in Australia, and the third most common cause of cancer death. It is estimated that there are around 120,000 men in Australia living with this disease. Prostate cancer does, however, have a good prognosis if detected early, when compared with other cancers. Through the establishment of this group, members of parliament will be better placed to raise awareness of prostate cancer amongst their communities. This is something that I feel strongly about as a sister, a mother, a daughter and a wife. It is important that in my role as the elected member for Dobell that I do what I can to encourage all men to visit their doctor for testing. We hear a lot about women having health checks. I think we need to have more education for men and awareness—especially for people like my husband, who will not go to the doctor until the last minute. The Parliamentary Friends of Prostate Cancer Awareness Group will work closely with the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia to provide support and information to members of parliament in order to raise awareness about prostate cancer. Last September, during Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, I had the pleasure of hosting the parliamentary Big Aussie Barbie. Following this event, the member for Blaxland and I took the decision to establish this group in order to provide a constant voice in parliament for those who are impacted by prostate cancer. I would like to thank the Hon. Jim Lloyd, the former member for Robertson and a great local member, who is himself a prostate cancer survivor, for his activism on this subject and his assistance in establishing this group. Jim stated: I know from personal experience just how important early diagnosis is in the successful treatment of prostate cancer. And: It is great news that a Parliamentary Friendship Group has been established within the Federal Parliament to continue raising awareness of prostate cancer, the treatment options and how best men can look after their own health. I would also like to acknowledge David Sandoe OAM, Chair, and Dr Anthony Lowe, CEO, of the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, and to thank them for their assistance in the establishment of this group. Recently, the member for Blaxland and I had the opportunity to catch up with Dr Lowe. Dr Lowe said: The development of this group will further strengthen Prostate Council Foundation of Australia's already strong links with the Federal Parliament. We look forward to working closely with the group to raise awareness of prostate cancer in the community and to encourage men over the age of 50 to talk to their doctor about being tested. Parliamentary Friends of Prostate Cancer Awareness will formally be launched later this month and later this year we will still be hosting the parliamentary Big Aussie Barbie, which will return here to Parliament House. I encourage all my parliamentary colleagues to attend. In addition, members of parliament will be encouraged to take the parliamentary Big Aussie Barbie to their electorates in order to raise awareness of this disease and I look forward to working with my parliamentary colleagues to support the Parliamentary Friends of Prostate Cancer Awareness Group. Together I am sure we can continue to raise awareness of prostate cancer and the many services available to help those who are impacted by this deadly disease. I have been talking to some of the bowls clubs in my electorate of Dobell and in talking recently with Norah Head we thought we might get a fundraiser up and running to raise money for prostate cancer. It was suggested that we call it 'Get out your balls for prostate'. I look forward to working with other bowling clubs because it is that demographic that tend to be diagnosed. I also want to quickly make mention of a project that is underway by the Lions Club of Tuggerah Shores. Last Friday they had a fundraiser, and they are raising money for Elsie's Dream. The aim is to build a hospice for the terminally ill on the Central Coast, which is something that is much needed. We want people who are very ill to be able to pass with dignity and respect. (Time expired) Beryl Women's Refuge 105 12:56 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser This year marks the 40th anniversary of the founding of Beryl Women's Refuge in Canberra. It was founded in 1975 as only the second women's refuge to be opened in Australia; a safe place women could go to when they experienced domestic violence. Family violence is still too prevalent in Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2012 found that, after the age of 15, 34 per cent of women had experienced physical violence and 19 per cent of women had experienced sexual violence. The one bright light in those chilling statistics is that the survey also asked about violence in the previous 12 months and on both measures—physical and sexual violence—the share of women who had suffered declined from 1996 to 2012. But one woman feeling unsafe in her own home is one woman too many. As the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, said in launching a book to acknowledge Beryl Women's Refuge: Violence is the way that so many women have their dreams—and sometimes their lives—destroyed … violence against women takes away their capacity to control their own lives. Ms Macklin noted the importance of making sure that refuges like Beryl Women stay open: It does cost money to make sure refuges are there every night that women and children need them, that legal support is there for people, and that family support services are there for people. We need to do everything we can to say to girls who are growing up today that they can expect to take their place wherever they dream they can. But we also want to make sure that, when they grow up, as women they are treated equally at work and at home. Here in my electorate of Fraser—as is the case all across Australia—vulnerable women are being turned away from legal services due to federal funding cuts. The Women's Legal Centre—solicitors who support women across the ACT and surrounds—is facing a loss of $100,000 in federal funding in two years. They estimate that the cut will mean that 500 women will not be supported by the centre over the next two years. Two-thirds of those 500 women are likely to be the victims of family violence. Two-thirds have no income or earn less than $35,000. The cuts will begin to bite soon, in July, and they will leave a growing number of the ACT's most vulnerable women stranded—women who cannot afford a private lawyer at a time when they are most in need. As Women's Legal Centre ACT Executive Director Heidi Yates says: We are the first port of call for vulnerable women experiencing domestic and sexual violence across all socio-economic backgrounds in different areas of Canberra Beryl Women's Refuge, after 40 years, now has no vacancy. These services are much in demand in the ACT. As Heidi Yates has pointed out to me in the past, these legal centres are an efficient and effective investment in protecting vulnerable women and families. The federal grants that they receive are used not only to assist their clients directly, but are also used to supervise pro bono work from local law forms. The ACT Women's Legal Centre has estimated that the loss in funding from the federal government also reduces the amount of in-kind support they are able to manage. As Heidi Yates points out: Cuts to funding results in cuts to frontline services, and this impacts on our ability to provide essential support to some of our community's most vulnerable, putting women and children at risk I call upon those opposite, who I know care as much about family violence as those on this side of the House do, to rethink these cuts and the impact that they will have on Canberra communities. This week Labor announced a package of measures to tackle family violence. I acknowledge the work of the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten; the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin; and the member for Gellibrand, Tim Watts. The package of measures commits to extra resources to front-line legal services, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. There is a commitment to make an extra investment in safe-at-home grants to ensure that people effected by family violence can stay safe in their home. Labor would invest in perpetrator mapping to look at the interactions across family violence and law enforcement and Labor plans a national crisis summit on family violence in consultation with academics and experts like Australian of the Year Rosie Batty. McMillan Electorate: Landcare 106 13:01 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan What a pleasure it has been today to hear members of this parliament speaking about the issues in their electorate, the things that concern them, the things that matter to the Australians they represent. It is an honour for me to stand here and be on duty today with you when members of parliament are making such presentations. I identify with the remarks from the member for Canberra in regard to violence against women, as each member of this parliament does. You have seen the results of that over these last few years as the issue has grown in importance. I was lucky enough to be invited to an erosion project that had some federal government funding through the Caring for our Country program. It is being undertaken by the Mt Worth and District Landcare group. It is a joint effort, as all land care is. I arrived for the morning tea and was welcomed by Rob Waddell from the area of Seaview, Strzelecki and Tetoora. The morning tea was at the Tetoora hall and we were able to not only have a cup of tea with Rob Waddell and his beautiful daughter but view a short film that showed how much work had been done in land care in that area of the Strzeleckis. It was rather remarkable, as was the new technology filmed by filmmaker Tim Rowse. The session was presented by Paul Strickland. Paul Strickland is into practically everything I go to around my area these days. It fantastic to be there and see the absolute enthusiasm of the people gathered on a Saturday morning to make a difference to this country and the environment through Landcare. Every one of us, wherever we go, sees Landcare projects that have been going on for years. They are one of the greatest investments that this country has ever made—restoring and repairing landscapes, valleys, landslips and road slips and all of the things that we have caused in our clearing of land that should never have been cleared in the first place, including in the Strzeleckis. These dedicated people were there on a Saturday morning to learn more and to have a look at what has actually happened with land care in the Strzeleckis. Then Dr Silvia Pongracic got up. Silvia was fantastic to listen to. She had been part of a women's leadership program in 2014. As part of the study, Silvia mapped what Landcare projects had been undertaken by Mt Worth and District Landcare Group over the years. It was really, really good to hear this woman stand up and say, 'I've got children; I'm trying to manage this and manage that,' but at the same time she was able to do all this work to map just how much work Landcare has done in this area of Strzelecki, Seaview and Tetoora. In 2012, Cara Brammar studied how birds responded to ageing vegetation on private properties. That might be boring for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, at the time, Cara was an honours student at La Trobe University. Cara is continuing to study the role that different types of land use have for bird presence and activity for her PhD studies. She is studying at Deakin University. Cara's work will assist in future land use policy. That morning I was not able to stay for Cara's presentation, but I did have a chance to talk to her. She was going to talk about the findings from her studies that were very interesting, and then they were going to visit and have a look at Cam and Margaret McDonald's farm and Lydia and Shahriar's—these properties were a mile and a half away from where I was. I am in the absolute beauty of 14 kilometres up into the hills, out from the back of Warragul, in my electorate. There are major problems with erosion et cetera out there. I talked to these people about the way they have planted and the way they have gone about it. A lot of the properties out there are no longer viable—they are 120 acres—so Rob Waddell and his family are nurserymen as well now on their farm. I said, 'How are you going?' He said, 'We're making a very good living out of what we're doing.' They are propagating nearly all native plants, and these plants are going all over Victoria and all over Australia for Landcare use and for other uses on farms. I honour these people who do such a good job on our behalf. Every day they are out there making a difference. They are changing our environment. They are cleaning the air. They are making greater opportunities for their children into the future. Question agreed to. Federa tion Chamber adjourned at 13:07   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 108 QUESTIONS IN WRITING National Broadband Network (Question No. 683) 108 683 Mr Kelvin Thomson UK6 asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 09 February 2015 Why are no suburbs in the electoral division of Wills listed in the latest National Broadband Network rollout maps and schedules. Mr Turnbull 885 The answer to the member's question is as follows: The suburbs of Brunswick, Brunswick East, Brunswick West, Gowanbrae, Essendon Fields and Strathmore Heights in the electorate of Wills are shown on the National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout maps as either having NBN services available or the NBN commenced construction. NBN Co is responsible for scheduling the rollout of the NBN and it uses a range of factors to prioritise the rollout. The factors that NBN Co has to consider include, current broadband availability, proximity of existing broadband infrastructure, capacity of the construction industry and minimising peak Government funding. NBN Co has not released any plans for the remaining suburbs in the electorate of Wills. However, the NBN will be rolled out to the remaining suburbs in Wills at an appropriate time determined by NBN Co. National Broadband Network (Question No. 684) 108 684 Mr Kelvin Thomson UK6 asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 09 February 2015 Why are the suburbs of Coburg, Fawkner, Glenroy, Hadfield, Oak Park and Pascoe Vale in the electoral division of Wills not listed in the latest National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout maps and schedules, and when are they expected to be connected to the NBN and with what technology. Mr Turnbull 885 The answer to the member's question is as follows: The Australian Government is committed to completing the construction of the National Broadband Network (NBN) and ensuring that all Australians have access to fast affordable broadband as soon as possible. Unfortunately the previous government significantly underestimated the cost and complexity of this project and, as a result, released rollout schedules that were unrealistic and inaccurate. For instance, it was originally forecast that 2.7 million houses would be passed by fibre by June 30, 2014. In a subsequent corporate plan—released in August 2012—that figure was revised down to 1.3 million houses passed. The actual number reached by 1 July 2014 under the all-fibre construction approach was 492,000 premises—less than one-fifth of the original target. Importantly, reforms to NBN Co have permitted the company to release a new National Rollout Plan which outlines the broadband deployment schedule over the 18 months to mid-2016. During this time the company will have commenced or completed upgrades to 1.9 million premises nationwide, mainly via fibre-to-the-node technology. NBN Co is responsible for scheduling the rollout of the NBN and it uses a range of factors to prioritise the rollout. The factors that NBN Co has to consider include, current broadband availability, proximity of existing broadband infrastructure, capacity of the construction industry and minimising peak Government funding. There are many areas in Wills that are already serviced by the NBN or will be shortly. The NBN will be rolled out to the remaining suburbs in Wills at an appropriate time determined by NBN Co. It is expected that NBN will roll out its Multi-Technology Mix network to the remaining suburbs in Wills. National Broadband Network (Question No. 685) 108 685 Mr Kelvin Thomson UK6 asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 09 February 2015 In respect of his comment on 18 November 2013 at the Commsday Conference: "Addressing these underserviced areas first is a key objective of our NBN policy", why did he promise before and after the election to connect underserviced suburbs to the National Broadband Network, but has not yet connected the suburbs of Coburg, Fawkner, Glenroy, Hadfield, Oak Park and Pascoe Vale in the electoral division of Wills. Mr Turnbull 885 The answer to the member's question is as follows: The Government has made substantial reforms to the National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout that will see it delivered sooner, at less expense to taxpayers and more affordably for consumers. Importantly, the switch to a multi-technology construction approach will enable underserved areas of Australia to receive broadband upgrades on average two years sooner than the all-fibre network approach. NBN Co is prioritising underserved areas where possible. However, it is not logistically or commercially feasible for NBN Co to simultaneously prioritise all underserved areas across Australia. NBN Co must balance a range of factors to ensure the NBN is rolled out as soon as possible to all Australians and at least cost to taxpayers. National Broadband Network (Question No. 686) 109 686 Mr Kelvin Thomson UK6 asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 09 February 2015 In respect of the comment on 9 April 2013 by the then Opposition Leader, and now Prime Minister, at the Coalition Policy Launch: "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 terms", (a) why did the Liberal Party promise before the election, to connect underserviced suburbs to a minimum of 25 megabits National Broadband Network (NBN) service, but has not yet connected the suburbs of Coburg, Fawkner, Glenroy, Hadfield, Oak Park and Pascoe Vale in the electoral division of Wills, and (b) when should these suburbs expect to receive 25 megabit NBN services. Mr Turnbull 885 The answer to the member's question is as follows: (a) The Australian Government is committed to completing the construction of the NBN and ensuring that all Australians have access to fast affordable broadband as soon as possible. NBN Co is responsible for scheduling the rollout of the NBN and it uses a range of factors to prioritise the rollout. The factors that NBN Co has to consider include, current broadband availability, proximity of existing broadband infrastructure, capacity of the construction industry and minimising peak Government funding. There are many areas in Wills that are already serviced by the NBN or will be shortly. The NBN will be rolled out to the remaining suburbs in Wills at an appropriate time determined by NBN Co. (b) There are many areas in Wills that are already serviced by the NBN or will be shortly. The NBN will be rolled out to the remaining suburbs in Wills at an appropriate time determined by NBN Co. Once the NBN has been rolled out to these suburbs they will have access to broadband speeds of at least 25 megabits per second. National Broadband Network (Question No. 687) 109 687 Mr Kelvin Thomson UK6 asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 9 February 2015 Further to his answers to questions in writing Nos. 474 to 476 (House Hansard, 24 November 2014, pages 185 to 187) when will all homes in the suburbs of Brunswick, Gowanbrae and Strathmore Heights in the electoral division of Wills be connected to the NBN, (b) what technology should these homes expect to receive, and (c) over what period of time will the "build commence" status of homes in these suburbs change to "fully activated". Mr Turnbull 885 The answer to the member's question is as follows: (a) The National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout in Gowanbrae and Strathmore Heights is currently underway and is expected to be completed in the coming months. The NBN rollout has already been completed in many areas of Brunswick. NBN Co has not released any information on when the remaining rollout in Brunswick will occur. (b) NBN Co is currently rolling out a fibre to the premise (FTTP) network in the suburbs of Gowanbrae and Strathmore Heights. NBN Co has already rolled out its FTTP network in many areas of Brunswick. NBN Co has not released any information on when the remaining rollout in Brunswick will occur. (c) It is expected that the NBN rollout in Gowanbrae and Strathmore Heights will be completed in the coming months. Loon Internet Technology (Question No. 693) 109 693 Ms McGowan 123674 asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 09 February 2015 In respect of the "Loon" Internet technology currently being trialled in several countries, including New Zealand, (a) has the Government or NBN Co. Limited investigated the possibility of trialling or adopting this technology for the provision of broadband Internet or mobile phone service in regional and remote Australia; if not, would the Government consider this, and (b) would the Government at least consider trialling Loon technology to provide mobile phone service in North East Victoria, where there are numerous mobile black spots due to mountainous terrain. Mr Turnbull 885 The answer to the member's question is as follows: The Australian Government recognises the importance of reliable mobile coverage. Expanding mobile coverage has clear economic and social benefits, as well as public safety benefits for people living, working and travelling in regional and remote areas. Through the Mobile Black Spot Programme, the Government is investing $100 million to improve mobile phone coverage in some regional and remote communities which do not currently have reliable coverage. The Government welcomes emerging technological innovations, such as Google's Project Loon, which seek to address the challenges of providing mobile coverage and internet access in regional and remote areas. The Government understands that Google has been conducting testing as part of its Project Loon in Australia and looks forward to further developments. It is the Government's view that the mobile network operators are best placed to determine the technologies they deploy to provide their services, and as such, the Government has not specified the technologies that mobile network operators must use to deliver mobile services funded under the Mobile Black Spot Programme In regard to the delivery of broadband services in regional and remote Australia, NBN Co is well advanced in its plans for servicing these areas through its Fixed Wireless Network and two purpose-built KA-band satellites.