2015-05-26 44 1 6 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 26 May 2015

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

BILLS 1 BILLS National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015 1

National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015

Second Reading 1 12:01 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Since the Australian government and all state and territory governments agreed to the National Water Initiative in 2004, there has been considerable progress in national water reform, through enhancing the security of irrigation water entitlements, enabling water markets and trade, strengthening Australia's water resource information base and improving urban water security. These achievements by all jurisdictions represents real progress in the management and sustainability of our water resources. The Abbott government is committed to continuing to progress national water reform and to supporting and promoting the principles of the National Water Initiative. However, it is important to review ongoing arrangements and our government is also aware of the need to find appropriate savings measures and of returning the budget to surplus, and as such have determined it is no longer necessary to retain a separate body to undertake the auditing and monitoring functions of the National Water Commission. In line with the government's ongoing commitment to the National Water Initiative principles, key National Water Commission functions will be retained and transferred to existing Commonwealth agencies. The abolition of the National Water Commission is expected to result in a saving of approximately $20 million over the forward estimates. The findings of the Commission of Audit were taken into account in making this decision, which recommended abolishing the National Water Commission as a stand-alone agency. The National Water Commission has played an important role in encouraging water resource policy and management nationally, following the development and agreement of the National Water Initiative a decade ago. The National Water Commission has worked closely with the states and territories, to monitor the implementation of these water reform commitments on a wide range of fronts. I would like to convey to the commissioners and the staff of the National Water Commission, both past and present, the government's appreciation for their work, which has served Australia well and has played a part in helping to place our nation at the forefront of water reform. The key task going forward is to ensure that the principles of the National Water Initiative continue to be upheld across the water sector, for example: urban pricing principles management of rural and environmental water effective implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The government will ensure that the important audit and review functions required under the National Water Initiative and Water Act 2007 are continued. To give effect to this, the Productivity Commission will have responsibility for: the triennial assessments of progress toward achieving National Water Initiative objectives and outcomes by state and territory governments; and the independent audit of implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and associated water resource plans will continue as statutory functions which will be undertaken by the Productivity Commission. the Productivity Commission will also be responsible for the biennial National Water Planning Report Card which is produced under the triennial assessment. The government is confident in the ability of the Productivity Commission and its expertise in water policy. By allocating the assessment and audit functions to the Productivity Commission, state and territory governments and stakeholders will benefit from the Productivity Commission's reputation for independence, the confidence in which it is held by the Australian public and governments, and its performance and benchmarking expertise. The Department of the Environment will be responsible for: assessing the performance of the Murray-Darling Basin states against the performance milestones specified in the National Partnership Agreement on Implementing Murray-Darling Basin reform; and providing ongoing advice on the status of relevant state and territory water resource plans to the Clean Energy Regulator, as required under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Regulations 2011. the Department of the Environment will also be responsible for monitoring water markets and producing an annual water markets report, which will be undertaken for the department by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, in the Department of Agriculture. I will now turn to the details of the bill. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the National Water Commission Act 2004 in order to abolish the National Water Commission with effect from royal assent, while also providing that key assessment and audit functions of the National Water Commission that are considered essential in the future, will continue, but be undertaken by different agencies. The bill amends the Water Act 2007 to provide that the triennial assessments of National Water Initiative implementation by state and territory governments and the independent audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan implementation will be undertaken as statutory functions by the Productivity Commission. The bill makes consequential changes to the Water Act 2007 to reflect the fact that the National Water Commission will cease to exist. To this end, references to the National Water Commission in the Water Act 2007 will be removed, including references which allow for the sharing of information with the National Water Commission or concerning its administration. Lastly, the bill provides for transitional arrangements for the winding up of the National Water Commission’s activities. The government also made amendments to the bill whilst it was in the Senate following further discussions with key stakeholders that will ensure greater confidence in the Productivity Commission in undertaking these functions and for increased stakeholder engagement. Specifically, a stakeholder working group is to be established for each matter referred to the Productivity Commission for inquiry and, for each matter referred to the Productivity Commission, an associate commissioner must be appointed who is required to have extensive skills and experience in water resource management. The government is confident that these arrangements will ensure the successful continuation of the key National Water Commission functions. I would like to thank those responsible in the Department of Environment for their work in bringing this bill forward and for their diligent work over the past 12 months—Ms Catherine Kelly, Mr Tim Fisher and Ms Fleur Downard. I would also like to thank Mr Richard McLoughlin for his work as the acting CEO of the commission over the past six months. I commend the bill to the House. 12:09 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide I rise to oppose this bill as we did in the Senate. We oppose the abolition of an independent expert body that has been at the centre of the National Water Initiative for a considerable period of time—the parliamentary secretary will remember that this was an initiative of the Howard government, not of Labor—and that, up until very recently, has been supported on a bipartisan basis. This bill continues the obsession that the Abbott government seems to have with abolishing all independent expert voices, particularly in these portfolios, established by this parliament to provide an arms-length independent voice on often very difficult, controversial and highly contested policy areas not just to the government but to this parliament and to the broader community. These are areas that are often the subject of significant contest in the community. The idea that the parliament will provide the community with a voice that the people could have faith was not affected by the politics of this chamber is something that this government seems utterly committed to tearing down. The parliamentary secretary spoke a little bit about the water reform process that this country has been engaged in now for more than 20 years. This has often been after painful debate and, as far as possible, it has been a matter of bipartisan consensus between the two major parties. Although from time to time we differ on the detail of the water reform process, both major parties of government recognise that this is a central question for the future productivity of the nation and the health of some of our most important environmental assets—in particular, the Murray-Darling Basin. It is more than 20 years since the real beginning of national water reform was started with the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework. Among other things, that framework separated water entitlements from land title, which set the foundation for the beginnings of the water market and also formalised the concept of environmental water. Ten years later the Howard government, to their credit, put in place the National Water Initiative, which built on those very important reforms that flowed from the COAG agreement. The objectives of the National Water Initiative were to broaden and deepen the emerging water market; to provide much greater national consistency in entitlements to provide a spur to interstate training; to provide more detailed provision for environmental water; and to provide provision for dealing with over extraction. Those last two points are very important as the initiative came in the shadow of the millennium drought. The National Water Initiative also provided policy settings for urban water reform. The establishment of the National Water Commission—which this bill proposes to abolish—was the first agreed action under the National Water Initiative. It was then funded by the Commonwealth, which would provide four members, with three members being nominated by state and territory parties to the initiative. These were to be specialist members—to take up the parliamentary secretary's point about the Productivity Commission, a body for which I have a very high regard—with particular qualifications and experience in general issues like auditing and evaluation and governance but in particular with respect to ecology and hydrology, among other things. The functions of the National Water Commission were to provide independent expert advice and guidance on the process of water reform. This would come in particular in the form of a two-yearly national assessment of the National Water Initiative, which the community and the parliament could have confidence would be conducted at arm's length from government and in an independent and objective expert way. From 2012 that biennial assessment of the National Water Initiative was shifted to be a three-yearly, or triennial, review but still with that same underpinning of objectivity, independence and expertise. Following the finalisation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan the commission added to its functions a five-yearly audit of the Basin Plan and, as I think the parliamentary secretary said, the associated water plans as well. Legislation to establish the National Water Commission required that, under the COAG processes, a review of the commission's work be conducted by 2011. The legislation also provided that the commission would cease to exist in 2012 through the operation of a sunset provision. Pursuant to that legislation, the Labor government then in power initiated a review that was conducted by Dr David Rosalky which reported in 2011 consistent with the initiative, and that review recommended that the National Water Commission continue without a sunset for the duration of the National Water Initiative. Obviously, the National Water Initiative remains unconcluded. The response of the Commonwealth at the time that that review was delivered was to accept the recommendations. We moved to remove the sunset clause to continue the operation of the Water Commission and, instead of a sunset clause, to provide for five-yearly reviews of the work of the commission, with some minor reframing of the role. The National Water Commission conducted its first audit of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 2013, consistent with its legislative objectives. At that stage, the House will recall, the basin plan was still very new; it had only been finalised in November 2012, so it was a very new plan to be reviewed. It is also important to note that, at the time of the delivery of the Rosalky review and the government's response to it, the major recommendations were very strongly supported by the then opposition, the coalition. The coalition voted for the amendments that flowed from the review's recommendations in the National Water Commission Amendment Act 2012. I can quote some supportive remarks that align much more with the Labor Party's position than the government's in relation to this bill. The then shadow parliamentary secretary in this area, Senator Birmingham, whom I know has been working in this policy area for many years, said at the time of the review being debated: The NWC's role is integral to getting water reform right in this country at a much broader level. …   …   … … I very much value significant parts of the work of the National Water Commission. They have brought an academic rigour, as well as a practical assessment, to the operation and consideration of water policy in Australia. …   …   … The National Water Commission have a very valuable role to play. …   …   … As we go forward, their role in holding the states and the Commonwealth to account for actually delivering on water reform is critical. Their role in providing expert analysis and advice is absolutely critical. …   …   … … we need good, credible independent organisations such as the National Water Commission to call it as they see it, to call it based on the facts, to call it based on expert evidence and to hold governments to account for the key policy principles that they have set out. With respect, I could not have said that better myself. This is utterly central to the community confidence, the confidence that stakeholders have in the national water reform process to have a body at the centre of it that can provide advice that everyone is confident is expert, independent and objective. There was nothing from the coalition before 2013 to suggest that the views that Senator Birmingham as the parliamentary secretary in this area put to the Senate in 2012 had changed one iota. There was nothing whatsoever said before the election to suggest that the coalition had changed their views about the importance of the National Water Commission—remember, a creature of the Howard government's National Water Initiative, not a Labor body—one bit. The first that anyone—a member of the community, a stakeholder in the water reform process, anyone—heard that the government intended to abolish this highly reputable, independent expert body was, of course, after the delivery of the audit commission, a commission set up with a view to slashing an burning in the budget process rather than bringing a forensic expert eye to the very complex and highly contested area of water reform. The audit commission process is a familiar story in many different policy areas. In addition to there being no warning about this sudden change of heart to jettison a creature of the Howard government's National Water Initiative and a body that was central to that water reform process, there was also no engagement with stakeholders. There was no engagement with the peak bodies in the water sector or the water reform process. There was no engagement with state and territory governments, particularly the other signatories to the basin plan. There was certainly no engagement with community and non-government organisations that have played such an active role in driving this parliament and governments at a state and Commonwealth level to pursue meaningful water reform. It was just dropped on everyone in the 2014 budget as so many different things were dropped on everyone with no warning. Not only was it an ambush; but there was no detail as to what would happen to the various functions that either the Howard government had allocated to the National Water Commission during its creation or that had been added after the finalisation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. They just made it up as they went along. That is just so consistent with so many of the approaches of this government in different policy areas to the work of independent expert bodies designed not only to provide government with important policy advice or auditing and monitoring advice but also to provide that to the parliament, members of parliament who are not members of the government and community members who take an interest in often very complex, highly contested areas of policy in environmental policy, in climate change policy, in the highly contested area of water reform. It is a consistent theme of this government first of all to ambush those organisations and secondly to do everything they can to shut down those independent, objective voices and ensure that all of the advice, all of the information going to the community about these policy areas is channelled through a ministerial office or the Prime Minister's office itself. We on this side of the parliament have been consistent in standing up for the importance of that independent, objective and in many cases highly expert voice in these challenging policy areas. The government finally did provide some detail as to what would happen to the different statutory functions of the National Water Commission, but only bit by bit—only by accretion. The key monitoring and audit functions around particularly the National Water Initiative and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which really were the whole reason for being for this National Water Commission, would be provided to the Productivity Commission. So the key monitoring work around the process of water reform, particularly the process of water reform as it applies in the Murray-Darling Basin but more broadly than that, including in urban water, would be provided to the Productivity Commission. As I said earlier, I have a terribly high regard for the work of the Productivity Commission. Over the years that I have been lucky enough to be in this place, I have worked with them on a number of policy areas. I think their work is highly detailed. Their capacity to engage with the community is well demonstrated. But, at the end of the day, the Productivity Commission is not an expert body on water reform. The National Water Commission is the body with key expertise around water reform. I note that the National Irrigators' Council has indicated support for this bill and support for the abolition of the National Water Commission on the basis that it would reduce the number of government agencies that are involved in the process of water reform. I also have a very high regard for the work of the National Irrigators' Council and enjoy and get great value from my engagement with that council on the, as I said, often very complex and highly contested issues associated with water reform. But, with respect, there is no reduction in the number of bodies that are now associated with water reform resulting from this bill and the abolition of one central commission designed to oversee this whole process. There is simply a disaggregation of the functions, spreading them between a whole bunch of different regulatory bodies. In this area of auditing and monitoring, there is simply the substitution of the Productivity Commission for the National Water Commission. There is no net reduction in the number of agencies with which the National Irrigators' Council and other bodies will need to engage; there is just the substitution of one generalist body, the Productivity Commission, for an expert body with specific expertise particularly in issues of ecology and hydrology. The only other body to indicate support for this bill and for the abolition of the National Water Commission, in the Senate process at least, was the National Farmers' Federation. Again, this is a body for whom I have a terribly high regard. It is a body that has been a very constructive and deeply engaged player in the whole process of water reform for very obvious reasons: it goes to the utter heart of the health of the agricultural sector. But I have to say that its support ultimately for this bill and the abolition of the National Water Commission is tepid at best. The federation's initial response to the abolition of the commission was to reject the idea that this body be abolished. It was presumably only brought around by very furious lobbying by members of the government after the remit of the Productivity Commission was changed and made more specific. I congratulate the work of the federation in at least getting the government to provide some more specific expertise within the Productivity Commission to do the work previously done by the National Water Commission. But again, with respect, I disagree with the conclusion that the National Farmers' Federation has reached about this. I am convinced, and Labor is convinced, that the better approach to continuing the work of the National Water Initiative and the important work of water reform would be to keep that body of expertise in the National Water Commission. Beyond the National Irrigators' Council and the National Farmers' Federation—two incredibly important players, I acknowledge that, in the process of water reform—every other stakeholder, as far as I can tell, is opposed to this bill. The two other significant peak bodies—the Australian Water Association and the Water Services Association of Australia—indicated quite strongly their opposition to the abolition of the National Water Commission. The Water Services Association of Australia in its evidence to the Senate inquiry around this bill said of the abolition that it: … removes national water leadership and the fearless advice and independent custodianship of the National Water Initiative that the commission— the Water Commission, not the Productivity Commission— has been able to provide. The other functions beyond the auditing and monitoring functions of the National Water Commission, as I said, have been scattered to the four winds. Some have been allocated to the government's department, so removing that idea of arms-length work being conducted by the National Water Commission. Some functions have been allocated to ABARES. Some other functions will simply disappear either immediately or in the relatively near future. For example, the reporting that the Water Commission used to undertake on the performance of water utilities will in relation to rural water utilities disappear immediately and in relation to urban water utilities be conducted by the Bureau of Meteorology for 12 months and then also disappear. This lack of regard for the importance of urban water policy, which was a part of the National Water Initiative, reflects this longstanding blind spot that the Liberal Party and the coalition generally has had on the Commonwealth's important role in urban water. Particularly Peter Costello, the Treasurer in the Howard government, rejected any idea that the Commonwealth would be a substantial, active player in the process of urban water, particularly through funding a range of different projects that contribute so much to the process of water reform in our cities. Labor's record in relation to urban water stands in stark contrast to the approach that the coalition has been taking in this area, back to and including the Howard government. The abolition of the National Water Commission is also for Labor a disturbing signal around the government's commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The National Water Commission was a very, very important part of the architecture of the plan to ensure that all parties to it—state and territory governments in particular—were doing their part to ensure that we achieved its objectives. This is a plan that was ultimately only able to be brought together because, as I have said in this place before, of bipartisan support between the major parties in this parliament and the support of all of the basin states and territories. Only in that way do we have a plan that will be able to endure through the good times and the bad times—through some of the tough times that, unfortunately, we know will come again for the south-eastern part of Australia. We know that there is still much work to do to achieve the objectives of the plan. I read in the paper that the Bureau of Meteorology only last week briefed the government that basin water storage, for example, is now down to 43 per cent from 55 per cent last year. We also know from bureau advice that, unfortunately, there is likely to be a significant El Nino event approaching in the very near future. So there is still much work to do. It is critically important that this government, the parliament, and the state and territory governments do not take their foot off the accelerator in terms of achieving the objectives that people, particularly the community stakeholders with skin in the game in this part of Australia, have worked so hard to pull together. In summary, Labor continue to oppose this bill, as we did in the Senate. We opposed the abolition of the National Water Commission. As a review only a few years ago found—a review whose recommendations were supported by the coalition when in opposition—the commission has been very, very important body at the centre of national water reform. No case has been made out for abolishing yet another independent expert body. Yet another independent expert body bites the dust on the watch of this government. There was no indication from the government before the election that the commission was proposed to be abolished. There has been only limited support given to its abolition within the sector, and so Labor remains opposed to the government's plans. 12:31 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons I rise in support of the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015. Some may wonder that the focus of this bill is on the Murray-Darling scheme when there are also other components of this bill that very much reflect on water policy more broadly around the country, particularly in my home state of Tasmania. Notwithstanding the contribution of the member opposite, that there are conspiracy theories around abolishing the Water Commission for roles that will become the function of a more than competent body in the Productivity Commission seems quite fanciful at best. The Labor Party are so good at the politics. They are much better at the politics on so many things than those of us on this side. It is very disingenuous to hear the comments made by those opposite in opposing this bill, because it is only an oversight bill. All of those functions will be able to incorporated within the capacity that exists in the Productivity Commission and also in the Department of the Environment. There have been consultations with those interested bodies, not least of all the National Farmers Federation. Whilst the word 'lobby' was used, I would use a different term of phrase. I would say that the argument was made. The case was argued and the verdict was delivered, and there has been consensus on this being an efficiency measure that is not diminishing in any way, shape or form the principles, as I have mentioned, of the National Water Initiative. They are going to be adhered to. This ties into irrigation and water policy more broadly, which I want to touch on within my state of Tasmania, particularly around urban pricing principles. We heard a little bit about Labor's record. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me tell you, in terms of the initiatives that were made out of those original bipartisan—acknowledged—National Water Initiative programs that were rolled out and the discussions that were held in that context, Labor's record in Tasmania was a disaster. We had a situation with councils in 29 municipalities within Tasmania where their capacity to manage water infrastructure had become untenable. It was something that was simply not possible with a relatively small rate base. It was agreed that responsibilities for urban water be taken over by a single body. At the time, as part of that arrangement, there was an amount of money, $500 million, to support the new organisation to start the program of reinvesting in urban water infrastructure around the state of Tasmania. I do not know where that money went to. Nobody knows where that money went to. It was Premier Bartlett and Treasurer Aird at the time. It is question that was asked in The Examiner even as recently as Monday this week: what happened to that money? It is a very good question. Indeed, environmental management of water around Australia is now a given. It is not an optional thing; it is absolutely a given. The other aspect of this bill is the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is interesting to look at the context of what has happened in more recent times with water policy, particularly in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin scheme. In recent years, governments have been actively participating in water trading, buying back entitlements that had been lifelines for many farmers, that had been their capacity to make a living in this land of drought. The perverse irony of governments buying back water at times at prices as high as $800 a megalitre from those people who aimed to make a living was not lost. At the same time in my state of Tasmania, we were having schemes designed whereby entitlements to water were being traded, depending on the location around the state, for around $1,100 a megalitre. The irony was not lost on those of us who have taken more than a passing interest over the years in markets and how markets work. It was quite countercyclical to what was happening in the Murray-Darling Basin, where water was being bought back by government. At the same time in Tasmania, albeit with bipartisan support, we had irrigation schemes in public and private partnerships with substantial contributions from the irrigators and the farmers involved—95 per cent secure water was being sold around my state at that time. It was a very stark contrast. There is an absolute revolution going on in the island state, and it is going to enhance and set in stone my state's reputation for producing high quality food and fibre. More than $1 billion at the completion of the second tranche of schemes will have been invested with state, federal and private partnerships to deliver 95 per cent secure water on the island state. Tasmania only has two per cent of the nation's land mass, but we are truly blessed with a unique maritime climate where 13 per cent or thereabouts of our nation's runoff occurs in Tasmania. That is twice as much as the Murray-Darling Basin, and this is the significant thing. Often, of course, it falls in the wrong places, and whether it be in the hydro-electricity schemes around the state or whether it be more recently within the irrigation schemes around the state, this has been the challenge—to capture rain in the places it falls and to distribute it to the places that are very dry. Certainly parts of the east coast and parts of the Midlands of Tasmania are some of the driest areas in Australia; for example, there is 17-inch rainfall in parts of the Derwent Valley; around Ross and Tunbridge 17- to 18-inch rainfalls are the long-term averages. As one Tasmanian irrigator rather poetically described it: The rain-bearing westerlies that unburden themselves after passing over the mountains of the Tasmanian west coast are on a constant circumnavigation in the latitudes called the Roaring Forties. The westerlies flow around the world, their path impeded only by South America. They arrive back in Tasmania, their clouds pregnant with water after visiting the Amazon. It is a beautiful picture that is painted there. As I mentioned, though, a lot of that water falls in the wrong place. The key for farmers is to capture that water, to harness that rainfall run-off, for future use before it runs out to sea. Frankly, the infrastructure involved is beyond the scope of any individual farmer, but the cost has been demonstrated to be willingly shared by those farmers, and in some cases also urban communities, that will benefit largely from this investment. There has been a willingness by farmers to take very much a long-term view about what it is they are doing by investing in these water entitlements, which of course are tradeable instruments as well. We already have examples of successful large-scale multiuse irrigation schemes in Tasmania developed under this public-private partnership model which have proved to be a very efficient use of capital—more so than the sum total of individual storage schemes on individual farms. For example, the Craigbourne Dam was a truly groundbreaking initiative in the Coal River Valley in my electorate. The Meander Dam was the first large-scale dam built in Australia for nearly 30 years, and despite the protestations of the usual suspects—particularly the Greens—this project has been an absolute success. It has been an absolute success from an environmental point of view, it has been an absolute success from a recreational point of view, it has been an absolute success in mitigating damaging floods that have occurred in the Meander River and the South Esk River over subsequent years, and it has provided that reliable supply of water that has enabled farmers to invest with confidence and to digress into other areas that they would not have considered possible. The Cressy Longford Irrigation Scheme, again in my electorate, is a significant scheme based off the back of the water that flows out of the Great Lake down through the Poatina power station, generating hydro-electricity in Tasmania. Of course, more recently the Midlands Water Scheme—the largest in the state—is irrigating 20,000-odd hectares of land. With good soils and now with reliable water, the opportunities are really endless. The South East Irrigation Scheme has rather expensive water—$2,400 is the entitlement there, because they are taking that out of the Derwent and bringing it over along through Brighton and Tea Tree into the south east, which is a very, very dry part of the state—but it will support horticultural enterprises. As an example, I think of Houston's lettuces, a family business that has grown off the back of producing lettuces that now go into pretty well every supermarket, certainly on the east coast of Australia. They are grown in my electorate in the south-east of Tasmania. There are also the Lower South Esk and the Whitemore irrigation schemes. There are wonderful stories of the differences that irrigation water has made not only to the lives of the producers involved but also to the communities involved. At the end of it all this is about jobs, this is about wealth creation, this is about opportunity and diversification. I mentioned the story of the Houston family. In 1957 Maitland and Bunty Houston migrated to Tasmania from Ireland with six children; they were chicken farmers. When Maitland could not sell chickens he was growing a few lettuces on the side, and the only thing that Woolworths wanted to buy from him were the lettuces, not the eggs. He was smart enough to realise that that was where the future lay and he is now, as I say, one of the biggest suppliers to the major supermarkets around the country. I think, for example, of Rob and Jo Bradley, with access to water on their 1,200 hectares—two properties at Woollen Park and Rosemount in the Longford-Cressy area—which they have really transformed. Rob won a Nuffield Scholarship and took a trip to the United States and the UK to investigate how to integrate livestock and pasture into an irrigated cropping system, improving soil quality and delivering a profitable and sustainable farming enterprise. The opportunities for even the most traditional of farmers are starting to be realised. This is truly the exciting thing about this, where you are seeing breeders of beef or store sheep that now have the option of being able to finish that livestock—and back that up with the free trade agreements that as a government we are delivering; there is a world of opportunity for these people to take advantage of bringing good soils together with reliable water. I am thinking of the Swan scheme, on the east coast of Tasmania—again, in my electorate. Brown Brothers owns the vineyard just south of Bicheno, between Bicheno and Swansea. Off the back of the scheme that has just been announced—the $60 million that has been contributed by the Commonwealth government, along with $30 million by the state government and nearly $50 million of private investment—they will be expanding their footprint in vineyards by 150 hectares. That means jobs, and it means opportunity on the east coast of Tasmania in those communities that really struggle. So, this is the story of water in my state. It is the story of a collaborative, bipartisan approach, from a political point of view, to the private sector working very closely with government and led ably by Chris Oldfield. And I must acknowledge the work that has been done by Chris Oldfield and his team in developing these schemes and delivering the opportunity to so many Tasmanians and so many Tasmanian communities. I also acknowledge, in the Southern Highlands scheme, Richard Hallett, who has been an absolute champion for a scheme in and around the Bothwell area, which is one of the driest parts of my state. That was one of the schemes and probably will be the first scheme that will be completed under the tranche 2 schemes that were recently announced by the Prime Minister at Evandale when we announced the $60 million for the tranche 2 schemes. And I want to acknowledge Tim Lyne at Swansea—again, a vineyard owner and somebody who has championed the delivery of reliable water into that area—and Marcus McShane, who has been instrumental in supporting the North Esk scheme at Evandale, which will be an opportunity for farmers in that area to diversify enormously. This is an exciting story, and, as I said, it contrasts very much with the situation we see in other parts of the country. I urge those who are interested in water infrastructure to look at the models we are using there—the collaborative models that are being used around the country. 12:47 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise today to join with my Labor colleagues in opposing the National Water Commission Abolition Bill that is before the House today. This bill abolishes what has been an independent, expert agency with important functions for both urban water services and indeed the Murray-Darling Basin. The bill continues this government's seemingly endless attack on independent, well-functioning bodies. It is a worrying trend of destruction of agencies and centralisation of assessment and power. Whether it be in the environment portfolio, the arts, infrastructure, health or others, this government seems determined to break down important specialised advice and assessment structures and, in their place, shift functions to underequipped bodies or simply claim ownership of the functions themselves. Labor did not support the abolition of the National Water Commission in the other place, where this bill originated, and we will not support it in this chamber either. We believe that the commission in fact has important roles left to play. The National Water Commission was created back in 2004 under the National Water Commission Act—indeed, under the Howard government. The intention was for the commission to perform important functions in relation to the National Water Initiative intergovernmental agreement. Some of those functions included, importantly, providing independent assessment of the progress of governments on water reform and to promote the objectives and outcomes of the National Water Initiative; auditing the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, or the Basin Plan, as it is commonly known; assessing the performance of the basin states in implementing agreed milestones under the National Partnership on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin; playing a role in the assessment of Carbon Farming Initiative proposals; and publishing water market reports and national performance reports for metropolitan, regional and rural water agencies. Two of these functions are indeed fundamental to the management of water resources in this country and which under this bill would be handed to the Productivity Commission. The first is around the triennial assessment of progress and implementation of the National Water Initiative, and the second is the five-yearly audits of implementation of the Basin Plan and associated water resource plans. Handing these functions to the Productivity Commission ignores the expertise and experience of the National Water Commission. As the shadow minister made very clear previously, the Productivity Commission has a really important role in Australia. Indeed, it functions especially well around its area of core business, which is to conduct assessments of the economic and social impacts of economic reforms. Unfortunately, that does not guarantee a depth of experience or knowledge around a very niche area of expertise around water management, and that is one of the problems Labor has with this bill. The Australian Conservation Foundation's assessment of the bill, which suggested giving responsibility for water management to the Productivity Commission, was indeed short-sighted and a backward step in the absence of substantial changes to the mandate and operation of the commission. The Productivity Commission is just not equipped to undertake the audit and assessment functions that the National Water Commission currently undertakes, in part because the Productivity Commission simply is not an auditing agency. There are other agencies that currently exist that are better equipped to undertake that kind of function—for example, the National Water Commission, which, regrettably, is the one this government is choosing to abolish. It is telling that neither of the key water services peak bodies—the Water Services Association of Australia, which includes my local water service provider, Hunter Water, from my area in Newcastle, or the Australian Water Association—support the abolition of the National Water Commission. In fact, during the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, there was very little support for the abolition of the commission from any of the stakeholders providing evidence. The urban water industry wants the commission retained, environmental scientists want the commission retained, and traditional land owners want the commission retained. I do acknowledge that there was some broad support for the abolition of the commission during the inquiry; however, the support was far from unconditional. I bring the House's attention to the National Farmers Federation. The shadow minister spoke of them earlier. Whilst giving some broad support to the abolition, the National Farmers Federation expressed serious concerns regarding water expertise within the Productivity Commission and its ability and willingness to engage stakeholders in a meaningful and ongoing basis. At least some of those concerns have been addressed in part by the government amendments which we see being incorporated into the bill before us today. Yet, despite the amendments that have been passed in the Senate, the expertise, experience and goodwill that the National Water Commission has built up over many years within the water industry and beyond will be lost if this bill is passed. We should make no mistake about that. That is what is at risk. It is very clear across the board that key organisations in the urban water industry and their members see very high value attached to the National Water Commission and agree that their industry needs the kind of assessment and reporting functions that the National Water Commission currently provides. It is not just the water services industry that will be the poorer if this bill is passed. Indeed, the Murray-Darling Basin and the plan that is giving life back to this vital environmental and agricultural jewel in Australia will also suffer. Handing the Basin Plan audit functions to the Productivity Commission will not only see the loss of important expertise but will also see a statutory body that is not known for its environmental credentials undertaking five-yearly audits of what is fundamentally a plan to enhance the environmental health of the basin. There should be no mistaking this move by the government. It is another attack on the environment and further erosion of Labor's plan to bring the Murray-Darling Basin back to good health. A recent report from the Australian Conservation Foundation on the Murray-Darling Basin shows that it is still not safe and that much more work has to be done. The 2014 report, Restoring our lifeblood: progress on returning water to the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin, shows that just two of 20 indicators are tracking well and, worryingly, seven indicators were given a red light, which represents imminent or serious risks that have the potential to erode the delivery of positive environmental outcomes within the basin. The red light was given to the following indicators, and these should flag a very serious warning to the government. The first red light was around subsidising water saving projects. The second was the 450 gigalitres of water for the Environment Trust Fund. Next were groundwater SDLs; the cost barriers to environmental water delivery; and connecting important areas, and this red light was directly attributed to the Abbott government's funding cuts to Landcare and to the National Reserve System and the abolition of the Biodiversity Fund. Next were the Indigenous water rights. Despite significant discussion and research, there has been very limited progress towards establishing important cultural water entitlements within the Murray-Darling Basin. Another red light directly attributed to this government is the removal and erosion of institutions and responsibilities that drive water reform in Australia. The foundation said that this will have lasting negative impacts on the effective management of our water resources, particularly those in the Murray-Darling Basin. I would also like to draw the House's attention to some incredible work that the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have undertaken in Australia. I flag with the House some of the concerns that they have raised with regard to the future of Australia's water reform. Certainly, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists noted that the National Water Initiative is 10 years old in Australia, but there are a lot of signs right now that indicate we are departing very quickly from the strong leadership of the last decade around this initiative. This is leadership that has, until now, been on a bipartisan basis. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists looked at the abolition of the National Water Commission in particular and lamented any attempts to abolish it. It highlighted that the commission was indeed central to guiding the reforms over the last decade. It had the core tasks, as I mentioned earlier, of auditing progress on the national reform agenda, auditing the outcomes of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and, importantly, advising the Council of Australian Governments on further opportunities for improvement. The National Water Commission also funded new knowledge on water management and assisted state governments to implement reforms. I would suggest to the House that these have to be very difficult tasks for the Productivity Commission, which lacks expertise in this area and does not have a body of scientists working with it in this area to be able to give sage advice to state governments and also the Council of Australian Governments. We are going to run into some serious problems there. I would also like to look at some insight provided by Environs Kimberley with regard to their experience of the Water Commission. I note that in their submission they wanted to highlight the importance of the commission's role in providing that independent, expert advice on matters of national water reform and, indeed, in monitoring and assessing the value of the National Water Initiative. Given the location of the Kimberley in the top north-west part of Australia, they have a very particular interest in Indigenous rights and interests in water. From the outset, Environs Kimberley noted that the National Water Commission has been a very strong supporter and promoter of Indigenous rights and interests in water and, indeed, Indigenous participation in water planning and management. Across northern Australia, Indigenous people manage over 40 per cent of the land and waters and have an interest in well over 80 per cent. The National Water Commission has supported the establishment of bodies such as the Indigenous Water Policy Group and the Indigenous Community Water Facilitator Network, which have been utterly indispensable in engaging local people and their representative organisations in water reform processes. Again, I would suggest the Productivity Commission is going to have great difficulty in being a leader in this area of Indigenous rights and interests, for no reason other than that it lacks the expertise and skills to do so. The National Water Commission has played a vital leadership role in national water reform by engaging important stakeholder groups like the Indigenous people in northern Australia who have some land and/or water ownership rights or who, through their traditional customs, have a clear interest in more than 80 per cent of those waters and lands. So abolishing the National Water Commission demonstrates the short-sighted nature of the government's thinking. In conclusion, I put on record that the National Water Commission does vital work and adds significant value to water management and reform in Australia. We can ill afford to lose this body of knowledge and expertise. 13:02 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Before I begin my contribution on this legislation, I just make the point that it is incredibly difficult to stand in this place and listen to members opposite belittle the professionalism and capability of the Productivity Commission and the Department of the Environment. But I will move on. I rise to speak in support of the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015. As a proud South Australian representative for virtually all of my state's basin communities, few others appreciate the value of Australia's natural water resources more than I.    But, as the federal representative for practically all of the communities in South Australia who live on and depend on the River Murray for their livelihoods, I also know firsthand the crucial importance of ensuring that these natural resources are managed properly for all Australians, not just the states who get first dibs on the water upstream or who have the largest voting blocs in this place or who are acting in a narrow, parochial manner. This is a national asset and it must be managed in the national interest. This country, particularly my electorate, is highly dependent on the fair, efficient and productive allocation of water to ensure our ongoing national prosperity and the living standards of not just those in the agricultural sectors, although those sectors are crucially important, but also those in the tourism sectors, which also depend upon the health of the river to be able to attract visitors. Since the Australian government and all state and territory governments agreed to the National Water Initiative in 2004, there has been considerable progress in national water reform, through enhancing the security of irrigation water entitlements, enabling water markets and trade, strengthening Australia's water resource information base and improving urban water security. The Abbott government is committed to continuing to progress national water reform and to supporting and promoting the implementation of the National Water Initiative. However, it is our firm belief that this should be done as efficiently as possible. As such, the government has determined that it is no longer necessary to retain a separate body to undertake the functions of the National Water Commission. Instead, and in line with the government's ongoing commitment to the National Water Initiative principles, key National Water Commission functions will be retained and transferred to existing Commonwealth agencies. I pause my remarks to make the point that I listened briefly to the shadow environment minister—it was all I could bear, with respect. As I heard him speak, I identified an immediate error. He spoke of the effective cessation of national performance reporting for urban water. That is in fact an error. The reality is that the national performance reporting for urban water will continue to be undertaken. Indeed, it was undertaken in the 2013-14 year by the Bureau of Meteorology and funded by the states. It is my understanding that the states have agreed to continue that funding for two more years and into the future. One wonders whether, if this was an issue of such importance to the shadow environment minister that he raised it in this place, he might have inquired with the government as to what is occurring with the national performance reporting for urban water, and he perhaps would have been set straight. I note that, in the original legislation that created the National Water Commission, it was always intended that the commission cease operations by 2012.    Whilst this was extended, I think it worth noting that clearly this legislative infrastructure was designed to achieve certain specific time-limited, performance-oriented objectives that, once completed, would remove need for that infrastructure to continue. So, in effect, by legislating for the commission's abolition, we are merely enacting the original intent of the legislation from 2004 and intuitively acknowledging that it has completed the purpose for which it was designed, with future challenges met with an equally appropriate and considered policy response. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the National Water Commission Act 2004 in order to abolish the National Water Commission with effect from 1 January 2015. The bill delivers on the Commonwealth's commitment announced in the 2014-15 budget to cease the operations of the NWC by the end of 2014, while transferring key functions to existing Commonwealth agencies. The abolition of the NWC is expected to result in a saving of close to $21 million over the forward estimates, thus further improving the budget bottom line. The findings of the Commission of Audit were taken into account in making this decision, which recommended the abolition of the NWC as a stand-alone agency. The National Water Commission's roles are of a monitoring and reporting nature; it does not deliver programs or have any approval or regulatory functions. The National Water Commission has reported to the Commonwealth and state and territory jurisdictions on the national benefits that resulted from the implementation by governments of the National Water Initiative, such as the creation of water entitlements as a tradeable asset, the development of water markets, improved environmental protection for our rivers and wetlands and improved urban water security for our towns and cities. The National Water Commission has made a significant contribution to water reform over the last decade. Its role in reporting on the rate of reform has been also significant and all its staff should be extremely proud of their work. Given both the substantial progress already made in water reform and the current fiscal environment, there is no longer adequate justification for a stand-alone agency to monitor Australia's progress on water reform. In line with reform priorities to improve efficiencies across the Australian government and to improve the budgetary outlook, the NWC will cease its functions following the release of its assessment of national water reform in October this year. The budget does not provide funding beyond December, and the winding up of the NWC is well advanced. The government reaffirms its commitment to the National Water Initiative and will ensure that the key audit and review functions required under the initiative and the Water Act 2007 are continued in a rigorous manner and with appropriate independent oversight. The triennial assessments of progress toward achieving the National Water Initiative objectives and outcomes by state and territory governments and the independent audit of implementation of the Basin Plan, and associated water-resource plans, will continue as statutory functions, but will now be undertaken by the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission will also be responsible for the biennial National Water Planning Report Card, which is produced under the triennial assessment. The Productivity Commission will also undertake independent audits on implementation of the Murray Darling Basin Plan, as required by the Water Act. Retention of this function is necessary to ensure continuing public confidence in the implementation of the Basin Plan. As the Productivity Commission collates performance data for other national agreements and national partnership agreements, it is well placed to take on the audit of progress in implementing the Basin Plan from 2018. The triennial assessments of the National Water Initiative implementation and producing a biennial National Water Planning Report Card. By allocating the assessment and audit functions to the Productivity Commission, stakeholders will benefit from the Productivity Commission's reputation for independence, the confidence in which it is held by the Australian public and governments, as well as its performance and benchmarking expertise. The government is confident that the Productivity Commission will strengthen and improve the reporting and analysis of the progress of water reform across Australia. In addition to the statutory functions that will be transferred to the Productivity Commission, the Department of the Environment will take on responsibility for assessing milestone payments to Murray-Darling Basin states against the performance milestones specified in the National Partnership Agreement on Implementing Murray Darling Basin Reform and for providing ongoing advice on the status of relevant state and territory water resource plans to the Clean Energy Regulator, as required under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Regulations 2011. The department will also be responsible for monitoring water markets and producing an annual water markets report, which will be undertaken for the department by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. The retention of these key functions by existing agencies was flagged in the 2014-15 budget papers, including the transfer of appropriate funding to support these functions, and will ensure the commitment by all governments to deliver on agreed reforms is realised. I will now turn to the details of the bill. The bill provides that certain key assessment and audit functions of the National Water Commission, which are considered essential in the future, will continue but be undertaken by different agencies. The bill amends the Water Act 2007 to provide that the triennial assessments of the National Water Initiative implementation by state and territory governments and the independent audit of the Murray Darling Basin Plan Implementation will be undertaken as statutory functions by the Productivity Commission. The bill makes consequential changes to the Water Act to reflect the fact that the National Water Commission will cease to exist. To this end, references to the National Water Commission in the Water Act will be removed, including references which allow for the sharing of information with the National Water Commission or concerning its administration. Lastly, the bill provides for transitional arrangements for the closure of the National Water Commission's activities. The bill and other measures put in place by the government will ensure continuation of all important functions of the commission in a more efficient and effective manner. I would like to conclude my remarks by highlighting some of the commentary around this legislation. I appreciate the support outlined by the National Irrigators Council, who state that the transfer of National Water Commission's functions to other agencies would 'rationalise arrangements which are currently sub-optimal'. The council goes on to note that 'the Productivity Commission has a proven track record in providing sound, independent advice to government on all aspects in the economy, including environmental issues'. I think this last comment is particularly important because, predictably, the Greens are opposed to the government's changes—as is Labor—specifically on the grounds that, in the Greens' opinion, these changes will undermine the integrity of the advice that is provided from the public service. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seem to be ending where I started. It is ultimately a matter for those opposite, the Labor-Greens alliance and others, to belittle the hard work of public servants at the Productivity Commission and to question their ability to act professionally and in accordance with their responsibilities. It is not a view I share; in fact I believe that if we are seriously trying to evaluate what is the most rational, productive, forward-looking approach to the allocation of a scarce and valuable resource, as water is, then surely it is the body of experts, which has been designed with precisely those principles in mind and which has a proven record in providing high-quality, independent advice to government without fear or favour, we should turn to. I commend this bill to the House. 13:14 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo In beginning my remarks today on the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015, I want to reflect on the contribution made by the previous speaker. I disagree that the job is done and there is little work left for the National Water Commission to do. Spend five minutes in Murray country and you learn very quickly that there is still a great body of work that needs to be done when it comes to managing water. There is a need to make sure that we take on board all views in regard to the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is vital that there be an independent assessment, critique and engagement of these ideas and plans. This bill seeks to abolish the independent expert agency that has the important functions not just of urban water services but also of the Murray-Darling Basin. As we have heard, people on this side of the House will not support the abolition of the National Water Commission, and we did not support it in the other place. That is because we believe that the commission still has an important role left to play and that the work has not been finished in terms of water reform. The National Water Commission was created in 2004 under the National Water Commission Act and has since then been working to implement needed water reform. The functions that are performed include providing independent assessment on the progress of government on water reforms and promoting the objectives and outcomes of the National Water Initiative. Again, we have not yet finished the job, so we still need the relevant agency to provide the independent assessment on how we are going with implementing the plan. I do not think that it is any surprise to many in this House that water will always be a very tough issue to find middle ground on. We do have competing interests. We need to ensure that we have independent expert advice that helps us to navigate our way through this complex policy area. One of the other functions of the National Water Commission is the auditing and implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It also has the important role of assessing the performance of the basin states in implementing the agreed milestones under the National Partnership agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. These are the areas that I wish to highlight in my contribution today. I did have the opportunity recently of heading up to the Murray area, where I got the chance to meet with farmers, producers and local environmentalists to talk through some of the concerns that they have about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It reminded me how much work we still have to do to ensure that we get the balance right and that we are balancing the environmental, social and economic issues associated with water in the region. This bill seeks to hand to the Productivity Commission two of the functions that are fundamental in managing water resources in this country. I am very concerned about what impact that will have on the rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in the state of Victoria. The Productivity Commission is not equipped to undertake the audits and assessment functions of the National Water Commission. Further, it does not have the expertise, knowledge or relationships that have been built up over time within the National Water Commission. During the time that I spent visiting and meeting with farmers in the Murray, I met with rice farmers. I know that rice farmers can sometimes get a bit of a bad rap, but when you meet with rice farmers they know all too well the importance of having water and having a water plan that supports their crop. When I was there, they said that they have had a good crop this year. That means that the future cropping that they can have on their land is secure. In my visit, I also caught up with Kagome Australia. For those who do not know Kagome Australia, they are the largest single grower of processing tomatoes and Australia's largest tomato processing company. In fact, they supply almost 45 per cent of Australia's domestic consumption of processing tomatoes and assist many of our large Australian manufacturers with the supply of tomatoes. You just pop in there, and they have shelves and shelves and shelves of Masterfoods and other tomato based products where they provide some of the local content. They have an annual revenue of A$50 million, and they are increasing the proportion generated in exports to Asia—and in particular to Japan, Thailand and Indonesia. So they are one of those regional success stories that we want to see grow. They have been proactive in engaging the Commonwealth and in engaging the state. As part of their top five recommendations in their submission to the agricultural competitiveness white paper of this government, they listed water and the management of water resources as their No. 1 issue. They state in their submission the need for there to be transparency and the need for there to be better communication, particularly in relation to decisions that the government makes to trade in temporary water. They talk about the impact that temporary water trading prices has not just on their particular enterprise but on the entire region when it comes to growing. The Kagome example highlights the need for more work to be done in terms of managing our water. The Kagome example highlights the issues that that they have raised and the need for there to be an ongoing independent body to monitor of the rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Murray Darling Association has many more examples. In the association's briefing notes that they provided to parliamentarians as recently as last sitting fortnight, they referred several times to the need for impacts to be transparent and measured via agreed monitoring, evaluation and reporting when it comes to the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Some of the issues that the association raised conflict with other issues that have been raised by other organisations, and that is why we still need the independence of this organisation to remain. Some of the concerns that they have raised, and these are the concerns that they have raised with parliamentarians, include the current price of temporary water and the effect that it has on agriculture in the region. They talk about the commodification of water and the impact water prices are having on farming, particularly in the Murray region. They talk about the need for water to be valued and managed in the basin as a national resource and not as a commodity. The Murray Darling Association talks about the need, with regard to the Water Act of 2007, for independent, evidence based monitoring, evaluation and review which is required to assess the effectiveness of achieving social, economic and environmental objectives of the Basin Plan. What better way to do that independent monitoring, to ensure that it is evidence based, to work with the local partners we have in these regions and to consult broadly than through what we currently have—which this bill seeks to abolish—and that is the National Water Commission. The National Water Commission, as I have outlined, is the appropriate body to provide that independent assessment of how our states are going with regard to water reform. It is not that long ago that we had the big campaigns in Victoria, where we saw the National Water Plan—one of the versions—being torn up and burnt. It is not that long ago that we had the Plug the Pipe campaign. But what we saw in the last government, and what we saw through national partnerships and through the states coming together, was the implementation of a plan that was agreed. We need to ensure that that plan is bedded down and has every chance of succeeding, that it consults broadly and not just with the environmental groups, and not just with the Murray Darling Association or the farmers, and that it brings people together and provides the independent assessment of how we are going as a country, as states and as a Commonwealth, in implementing important national water reform. The National Water Commission does important work and it adds significant value to water management in this country. Since the very first implementation of the National Water Commission, it has really sought to bring together all of the key stakeholders. The transferring of these functions to the Productivity Commission ignores the expertise and the experience of the National Water Commission. The Productivity Commission, as I said, is not equipped to undertake the audits and the functions of the National Water Commission. Nobody, for a moment, is criticising the public servants that work for the Productivity Commission. They do good work and they are doing a lot of work for this government. We are saying that we need to continue to have an independent body that has the experience and the expertise in water. This particular National Water Commission have built the relationships. They are working hard and their job of bedding down water reform is not yet done. Environmental scientists agree and want the National Water Commission to be retained. Traditional owners agree and want the National Water Commission to be retained. The urban water industry agrees and wants the National Water Commission to be retained. Even groups such as the Farmers' Federation have expressed concerns with regard to water expertise within the Productivity Commission and its ability and willingness to engage stakeholders on an ongoing basis. All these groups involved in water want to ensure that they continue to be engaged in national water reform. Yes, the government has addressed some of these issues and they have incorporated some of these amendments. However, they do not go far enough. We still need to have the independence of the National Water Commission to ensure that the job actually gets finished. Handing the Basin Plan audits function to the Productivity Commission will not only see the loss of important expertise; it will also see a statutory body that is not known for its environmental credentials undertake five-year audits of what is fundamentally a plan to enhance the environmental health of the basin. It is another attack on our environment, and a further erosion of the plan to bring the Murray-Darling Basin back to health. For as long as I can remember being involved in politics, Labor has been committed to seeing health restored to the Murray—whether it be Peter Beattie in the early years talking about Cubbie Station or whether it be Simon Crean in his budget reply speech back in 2003, Labor has been talking about the need for water reform and the need for us to work with the states to ensure the health of the Murray. In my time up in Murray country, I really learnt a lot by being out on the ground and talking directly with farmers and environmentalists. I learnt one thing: without water we do not have strong, resilient communities in these parts of Victoria. We need to have a strong, robust water reform and we need to ensure that we continue to consult with the agencies, the organisations, the people and the communities that rely on water. We can reach a good balance, and we saw that in the reforms that had been adopted and agreed to at the national level. But we need to continue to work with these communities to ensure that we have good outcomes, and to ensure the continued importance of the original objectives to (1) restore health to the Murray, (2) ensure that we have good environmental outcomes, and (3) balance that against our agricultural plans. I call on this government to consider the contributions that have made on this issue, and I ask that they not proceed with abolishing the National Water Commission, because, as I have outlined, we still need to do a lot of work to ensure that the national approach and reforms to water do proceed, we need to continue to have independent assessment and advice on the progress of governments on water reform, and we need the commission to continue to promote the objectives and the outcomes of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Employment 14 13:29 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin As of today, there are over 800,000 Australians who are unemployed. This is an appalling waste and it is a crisis. It is also over 800,000 reasons for a plan from this government for the jobs of today but, more importantly, for the jobs of tomorrow. I know jobs are the No. 1 issue in the electorate of Scullin; that is what people have been telling me. I know it is probably the No. 1 issue right around the country. While we have seen hubris from government members about the supposed impact of its budget of a week or so ago on jobs, what it demonstrates is that this is a government without a vision for the future. Its only vision for jobs is to punish those without them—to continue to blame the victim. This government talks about jobs in the same way it talks about fairness. In a context where unemployment is predicted, by the budget papers, to go up, not down, and wage growth, similarly, will continue to be at record lows, living standards are under pressure. That is why Labor's bold and confident vision for jobs is so important to Australia, as is the Leader of the Opposition's offer of bipartisanship on this crisis issue. Labor presents a stark alternative to the government's inaction, a stark alternative that must be heeded: to invest in the future, to invest in a plan for jobs and, critically, to invest in giving people the skills that will enable them to do the jobs of the future. Fibre to Football 14 13:31 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon This year, the fibre has been put back into football! Thanks to the efforts of Australian Wool Innovation, AFL teams have begun to sell jumpers and other merchandise made from Australian Merino wool. The campaign started with Bill Bailey, a sheep farmer in my own electorate, who fondly remembers playing in woollen jumpers in the sixties and seventies. His old club of Coleraine was the first to test these new jumpers in 2014, to great success. This restored connection between our native game and the sheep farms of Australia is only natural: AFL was invented on a sheep station in Victoria. In fact, John Harms of The Footy Almanac has begun to collate teams of current and former AFL stars who were born or bred on sheep farms. The list currently includes Geelong great Tom Hawkins, Adelaide champion Shaun Rehn and Fremantle star Nat Fyfe. Tellingly, the same Riverina farming town that gave us that great pastoral painting Shearing the Rams also gave St Kilda Justin Koschitzke. Australian wool belongs with Australia's game, and I congratulate all involved in helping put fibre back into football. I also note that this weekend is the annual Dreamtime round, recognising the enormous Indigenous contribution to Australian Rules, with Essendon and Richmond playing the signature game of the round. I encourage all members to celebrate these games, whilst respectfully saying, with my woollen jumper on: go, Tiges! Budget 15 13:33 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor This government claims its second budget is about jobs. In my community, where we are losing jobs because of the automotive closures and flow-ons, and youth unemployment is growing, we would really appreciate this government getting serious about job creation. But, instead, what do we get? The government's budget projects an increase in unemployment, to 6.5 per cent. It has not been that high since this Prime Minister was the minister responsible for employment. We have increases in unemployment and, more crazily, we have a government standing in the way of the improvements to education that would deliver the innovation and capacity to create the jobs of the future. We have a government that slashed education funding last year, a government that is persisting with $100,000 degrees. However, on this side, we are committed to creating the jobs of the future. We understand that improving education and educational outcomes, ensuring access to affordable and high-quality higher education, funding early education for all young children and building the capacity of our schools to deliver high-order and scientific thinking to all students will build our capacity to create the jobs of the future that this country needs. On this side, we are committed to equity and quality in education and to the best training for our early educators and our teachers. Our commitments this week demonstrate that: commitments to improving STEM teaching and learning; to introducing computer coding, the language of the 21st century— (Time expired) Pacific Motorway M1 15 13:34 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I rise today to speak about the M1 motorway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and, in particular, the bottleneck that runs from the Gateway Motorway merge to the Logan Motorway—and I see my good friend the member for McPherson here, who also has issues further down the highway, but we will focus on the Gateway-Daisy Hill section at this point. To the frustration of many thousands of commuters on a daily basis, they are stuck in constant traffic jams. The congestion is not only affecting people commuting to and from work but also affecting the business community, with many of our local tradespeople caught in that traffic. Logan's population is expected to grow to more than 452,000 by 2031, and the Gold Coast population will grow to more than 798,000. This is now the busiest piece of road in Queensland, bar none. I call on the new Palaszczuk state government—not only the minister for roads, Mark Bailey, but also other state members who are affected—to work with both me and the member for Rankin, Jim Chalmers, to find a solution to this problem for the benefit of all of our communities. I would like to thank the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Warren Truss, for being open and willing to discuss this significant issue for our community. (Time expired) Budget 15 13:36 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter The now Prime Minister went to the last election mischievously and deceitfully claiming that the economic challenges we faced had nothing to do with the global situation but everything to do with the then government. Now, of course, it has everything to do with the global environment and nothing to do with them! We have recently seen a budget which has no economic narrative at all and predicts, or admits, that unemployment not only is on the rise but will continue to rise. So, where are the jobs of the future? Where is the government's narrative? Where is their economic plan and strategy to create jobs in this country? I can cite one area where opportunities are rampant, and that is of course in rural and regional Australia, where unemployment is typically higher than it is in our capital cities and the suburbs around them. Our agriculture sector faces huge opportunities with the growing demand for food, particularly among the middle classes of Asia, yet investors and business alike are looking for some guidance from this government. We have now had 20 months of government without any agriculture policy in this country. Minister Joyce keeps telling us that the white paper is on its way; apparently, state ministers were told last week that 'it is full of ideas but we have no money to back it'. Woe is me! Unemployment will continue to rise until this government acts. Battle of Crete 16 13:37 Mr VARVARIS 250077 Barton Seventy-four years ago this month, Australians and Cretans fought alongside each other against an oppressive Nazi regime despite overwhelming odds. I was deeply honoured to have been able to attend two events commemorating this significant chapter in our history as the representative of some 20,000 Greek-Australians in my electorate of Barton. As a fellow Greek-Australian, I pay my respects to the soldiers who lost their lives fighting for freedom. The Battle of Crete and the Greek campaign are, unfortunately, not well known. Out of a total of 40,000 soldiers who made up the Allied and Greek forces, 3,990 were killed, 2,750 were wounded and 17,090 were captured. The 'Creforce', a union of Allied and Greek troops, bravely faced the oncoming German paratroopers. Together they fought valiantly, along with Cretan villagers who risked their lives providing food and shelter to those on the island. Both sides fought a desperate action that entailed stubborn determination and unrelenting bravery. It was an innovative campaign, and it was the first aerial invasion in warfare. The bravery of our troops, together with the brave Greek and, in particular, Cretan people, dealt a severe blow to the German morale. It is important that we honour the memories of those who have fallen or those who have passed on since. The heroism and persistence shown by our fellow Australians and Cretans have ensured that their deeds will always remain a part of our memory and our nation's history. Indi Electorate: Schools 16 13:39 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I am very pleased to welcome into parliament today students, teachers and parents from Dederang, Tawonga and Mount Beauty primary schools—three beautiful schools nestled in the beautiful and productive Kiewa Valley. While I am sure their visit to Parliament House today is a highlight, I know there is strong competition: today they visited the Australian Institute of Sport, tonight they will be playing bowls, and they have visited the Dinosaur Park, the War Memorial and Old Parliament House. Congratulations to all who are involved in this study tour—teachers Nicholas, Julie and Dave; parents Kylie, Izzy and Mark; and the support team who made this possible. The students told me they have had a fantastic time, but I can see it is part of the teaching and the transition that these fantastic country schools give their young people by introducing them to parliament and giving them a chance to get away from home and experience what the big world is like. Congratulations and well done. Bonner Electorate: Road Traffic 16 13:40 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I rise today with extremely good news for commuters who travel between Brisbane and Redland City in and around my electorate of Bonner. Traffic congestion on certain roads between Brisbane and the Redlands can be a real problem at peak hour. Many people who live and work in my electorate can tell you this. Just take a trip into the city via Rickertt Road and Green Camp Road during morning rush hour and you will quickly understand why motorists have been calling for upgrades to this area for some time. That is why I am happy to report that all three levels of government have agreed to work together to fix congestion and traffic problems between Brisbane and the Redlands. On 11 May, I, along with my fellow government representatives, attended the first Redlands and Brisbane Transport Working Group meeting. We discussed the most pressing transport and infrastructure issues that affect both cities. It was the first step in what will be a major new undertaking to improve our shared transport infrastructure. I would like to thank my fellow members on the working group—Redland City councillors Julie Talty, Paul Gleeson and Paul Bishop; Brisbane City Councillor for the Doboy Ward, Ryan Murphy; the state member for Capalaba, Don Brown; the state member for Cleveland, Mark Robinson; the state member for Redlands, Matt McEachan; the state member for Chatsworth, Steve Minnikin; and my good friend the federal member for Bowman, Andrew Laming—for the insight and encouragement they have shared so far. Australian Labor Party: Jobs for the Future 16 13:42 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Aside from the fact that this year's budget is fundamentally unfair, one of its problems is its lack of vision for the future. In many areas of the budget, we see funding dropping off after two to three years. So what is this government's vision for the future? What will Australia look like in 30, 40 or 50 years time? What will be the jobs of the future and what skills will we need to take us there? In his Budget reply speech the Leader of the Opposition outlined how Labor will address these issues in government and our plan for the future and the decades to come. He outlined a plan that builds beyond the mining boom to capitalise on the imagination and adaptability of our people. He outlined a plan that places infrastructure, education, small business, science, technology, innovation and start-ups at the centre of Labor's vision—a plan that cultivates and attracts the best minds and supports out great institutions and encourages home our talented expatriates. He outlined the skills Labor believes will be needed for our future leaders and the jobs of the future—skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. That is why Labor will invest in digital technologies and computer science and ensure coding in every primary and secondary school in Australia. We have a vision for this country, for the jobs of the future, where opportunity is shared by all—a stark contrast to those opposite. Braddon Electorate: Community Sport 17 13:43 Mr WHITELEY 207800 Braddon Community sport is so important for the north-west, west coast and King Island communities. It is where athletes, families and communities come together week-in week-out to meet with friends and reap the health benefits of local sport. Some competitors that stand out on the sporting field will have the opportunity to represent their community at state, national or even international level. I recently had the privilege to present some of those young local sporting champions with a certificate and a cheque to help cover some of their costs. These local sporting champions follow in the footsteps of hundreds of elite athletes from my electorate. Take note of these names for the future: in athletics, Lily James and Mitchell Pulford; basketballers Stuart Lee and Jett Grey; softballer Adrian Bell; in hockey, Joshua Downey, Branden Johnson and Raeleigh Philips; cyclists Cameron McPherson, Ronin Munro, Renee Dykstra, Jake Bergman and Morgan Gillon; canoeists Brad Rubock and Mitchell Scott; and surf lifesaver Leah Johnson. It was clear from the presentation that this group of young people is not only committed to its chosen sports but also to its communities. I also take the opportunity to welcome to the chamber family members of mine from Tony Abbott's electorate of Warringah: Reg and Moira Whiteley together with their son Greg Whiteley and his daughter Jemima. It is great to have them in the chamber and thank them for their contribution to the great state of New South Wales. Education 17 13:45 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Last week I spoke to several oil and gas industry executives, and they told me of their concerns about the need to train more science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduates. They talked to me about a particular job that is done in this sector and involves remotely operating underwater robots, which sounds to me to be a fantastic job. They said that they are getting Norwegians to do this job here in Australia because of the need that we have for more and better skills. That is just one example of the need to train more people in STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths. They also talked to me about what they want for our future, which is to get more girls interested in those disciplines, so I am really pleased that during the budget reply Bill Shorten announced that we would take a number of measures to boost the skills of 25,000 current primary and secondary teachers in these areas; to train new teachers; to encourage students to study in these areas by writing off the HECS debts of 100,000 science, technology, engineering and maths students; and to encourage more women to study, teach and work in these fields. It is so important that, when we think about where the jobs of the future are going to come from, with all of the challenges and disruption that we are going to have from automation, emerging technology, change and the challenges around the world from climate change and other megatrends, we talk about how we are going to train the future workforce. That has to start very young. It has to start with coding, science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Infrastructure 17 13:46 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson The people of the Central Coast deserve a future where they can live and work locally, so today I rise to call on the Labor Party to support this really important vision—a vision shared by tens of thousands of people right across my electorate who commute every day to Sydney or Newcastle for work. That is why they voted for a government that is delivering jobs growth and opportunity; but, sadly, the Labor Party want to hold the Central Coast back, and I want to know why their former Labor representative—now Senator Deborah O'Neill in the other place—comes out complaining about a plan for 600 jobs in Gosford. I also want to know why the Labor member for Franklin has confirmed that Labor opposes our National Stronger Regions Fund, a fund that has ensured the future of the Somersby Industrial Park with a $10 million grant to assist Gosford City Council with improving the roads and infrastructure around it so it is business ready and encourages new business to the coast. Economic modelling provided by council shows that upgrading this park could provide more than 3,000 jobs and bring a $267 million boost to the local economy. Imagine that. Imagine a future where the Somersby Industrial Park could one day rival Norwest or Macquarie Park in Sydney. And this is not too far away; construction will start within weeks and be business ready in around two years. You would think the Labor Party would back this important initiative instead of complaining and opposing significant initiatives that are good for the coast. I call on Senator Deborah O'Neill to explain why she is refusing to support these important projects—projects that are important for our commuters, for our young people looking for work, for families looking to get ahead and for small businesses in my electorate. Employment 18 13:48 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo In the budget we saw one figure that really jumped out at all of us: unemployment is increasing. Next year, the year after—in fact, unemployment in this country is the highest rate it has been since the Prime Minister was the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations under the Howard government. Youth unemployment in regional areas is also up. In my own area of Bendigo it is up to 19 per cent. One in five young people are unable to find work. It is an absolute disgrace that this government's budget failed to have a comprehensive jobs plan. This government is failing on jobs. Yes, sure, there is a boost—perhaps in retail jobs. Perhaps there will be a few extra people employed at Harvey Normal to help 'Tony's tradies', but that is not a long-term future jobs plan. That does not help that 19 per cent of young people in Bendigo have a job and a career for life. What we need is a government and a plan that encourages and invests in our young people, that gives them the opportunity, that gives them the education and the chance. When I met with the Bendigo Manufacturing Group, they said that they want to employ young people but there is a severe lack of opportunities for them to train in the fields that they need: maths, science, engineering and technology. It is time this government got on board and invested in long-term investment in jobs and future jobs, not more rhetoric. Jodi Lee Foundation 18 13:49 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby On Friday and Saturday I joined 300 tutu-clad people who hiked 80 kilometres of the Heysen Trail through South Australia's Copper Country from Kapunda to Burra to raise funds to support the Jodi Lee Foundation. Between us the hikers raised more than $377,000 to support the foundation's efforts around bowel cancer awareness, screening and research. This year the hike was in memory of Tracey Lee Diamond, who, sadly, lost her battle with bowel cancer in February last year aged just 41. Her twin sister Tania raised over $50,000 and spoke from the heart at the post-event dinner in the historic Burra mine. The Jodi Lee Foundation's message is simple: the early detection of bowel cancer saves lives. Bowel cancer is Australia's second biggest cancer killer, claiming 5,000 Australians each year. However, this number could be much lower since it is also one of the most preventable cancers, with early detection leading to successful treatment in 90 per cent of cases. I may be hobbling around parliament this week, but I am very glad I did the hiking challenge. I would like to extent my congratulations to Jodi Lee Foundation CEO Nick Lee and co-founder Tiffany Young on a remarkable event as well as their ongoing fight to eliminate bowel cancer in Australia. Two-thirds of Australians who receive their free bowel cancer screening kit in the post throw it away. It is a simple test. Please do not let it wait; it could save your life. Department of Agriculture 18 13:51 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth Twenty great jobs in the biotech industry in Bunbury have been lost following a problematic investigation by the Department of Agriculture. I am deeply concerned that the department is drawing out this inquiry and blocking the business from restarting. The claim of the Department of Agriculture to be continuing to investigate Serana and other companies is called into question by the investigation costs given in yesterday's Senate estimates. In November 2014, parliament was advised that the total cost of the investigation to date was $237,435, but yesterday the cost for the investigation was given as $239,285. In the past six months less than $2,000 has been spent on the alleged continuing investigation. I am concerned that this investigation which started in September 2013 is being kept alive so that the department will not have to face the fact that a company has been destroyed and no evidence found to support a prosecution. Obviously if less than $2,000 has been spent in six months the idea that there is a real investigation on foot cannot be seriously entertained. The parallel universe mentality of department officials was brought home yesterday when they said there is nothing stopping the company from trading when Serana's reputation has been so comprehensively trashed by the way the investigation has been conducted. We need this investigation to be brought to a conclusion so this business can restart. (Time expired) Harrington, Mr Ray 18 13:52 Mr WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to commend an outstanding farmer, innovator and inventor, Ray Harrington, who recently won the gold medal in the smart agriculture category of the prestigious Edison Awards in New York. Ray has long been at the forefront of innovation in agriculture and was last year awarded the Order of Australia in the general division for his services to agriculture. Best known as one of the early pioneers of no-till farming, Ray's quest to reduce weed seed burdens has led to the invention of the Harrington seed destructor. Towed behind the harvester, this machine crushes and destroys at least 95 per cent of weeds that enter the header at harvest, preventing them from returning to the seed bank. It reduces herbicide use and is thus a formidable tool against herbicide resistance. Designed and built with the assistance of local farmer Ron Knapp and Mike and Geoff Glenn of Agmaster, the Harrington seed destructor was launched by the Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative in 2012 and was funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation. Now in full commercial production, it has been the focus of a recent harvest weed management tour of the US and Canada. The Harrington seed destructor is now being trialled in research projects in both the US and Canada. I again congratulate the great work of Ray Harrington in collaboration with Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative director Stephen Powles and researcher Michael Walsh, Don Hare of the Great Southern engineers and the GRDC's Paul Meibusch and commend their efforts to revolutionise the war on weeds. Newcastle Electorate: Employment 19 13:54 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle My community of Newcastle is desperately in need of jobs. Since the Abbott Liberal government was elected, unemployment has climbed to decade-long highs—peaking at more than 10 per cent and still well above the national average at 8.1 per cent today. There is little sign of reprieve under this government, which clearly has no plan for jobs of today or tomorrow. Last week saw a significant milestone for our highly skilled shipbuilder Forgacs and its workers as the first air warfare destroyer was launched in Adelaide. Sadly, rather than rejoicing at the launch of a ship that they helped build, workers are faced with more uncertainty, with Forgacs management already forced to downsize its workforce as this government sends what naval shipbuilding work it has commissioned offshore. Newcastle is home to some off our country's brightest minds, leading researchers, highly skilled manufacturers and promising start-ups. We are an innovative city and a community that has a history of successful transition into new jobs and new horizons. But transition does not happen on its own. It needs support. Yet this government offers nothing more than ongoing attacks on higher education and vocational education and cuts to assistance for those who are looking for work, just to make things worse. Labor has a plan for innovation and a plan for the jobs of the future. It has a plan for science, technology, engineering and maths jobs and a plan for start-ups. This government needs to step up to the task it set itself of creating one million jobs over five years. Its performance so far has been dismal, and this budget provides no answers. (Time expired) Hasluck Leadership Award 19 13:55 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I rise today to speak about the 2015 Hasluck Leadership Award winners. Last week, I held a workshop where year 11 students in Hasluck competed in a range of public speaking and leadership activities to win the trip of a lifetime to Canberra. All finalists showed outstanding leadership qualities and I know it was a hard choice for our judges—Harry Rosielle, Kim Charles and Jade Gurney. This year's winners are Cassidy Marino and Jordan Joseph, and they will be accompanying me to Canberra in September to tour the capital and meet our nation's leaders. Cassidy Marino is from La Salle College in Viveash and has a keen interest in media and the arts. Cassidy has plans to run for leadership positions in her final year of school and, upon completion of year 12, she would like to continue her studies through exchange programs overseas. Jordan Joseph is from Mazenod College in Lesmurdie and is aiming for a career in medicine, looking to complete his studies at the University of Western Australia. With his career in medicine, Jordan hopes to volunteer in a hospital in South America. He has shown outstanding leadership at school as a form representative and as a peer support leader. I hope that all members will make these students welcome in September and will set some time aside to meet with them, because from the experience that all the Hasluck young leaders have had in meeting leaders here they have gone away with the view that members are committed to their tasks, are committed to their electorates and are humble people. That has been the reflected view of all of the young leaders who have participated in the program. Employment 19 13:57 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Australia has a very long history of innovation and invention. We in this chamber know that Australians invented spray-on skin, wi-fi and the black box. These are parts of our history that many of us are very proud of. But it would be very glib and very simplistic of those of us in this House to talk about those achievements in a way that implies that, because of them, we are well placed to embrace the jobs of the future. We all know that technology is changing our economy in ways that we would not have foreshadowed 20 years ago. An Oxford University study last year found that 47 per cent of jobs that exist today will be gone in two decades. We know that the jobs at the lower end of the skills spectrum are the ones that are disappearing most quickly. We also know that 75 per cent of the fastest growing jobs categories in this country are those that involve STEM skills. Labor is the only party in this country right now with a plan for addressing some of the challenges we face—and they are many. We know that we do not have enough young people studying in STEM subjects. We know that we do not have enough companies around this country investing in research and development. I am very proud of Labor's plan to help young people get into STEM training and to encourage more people into these important and growing fields. Hinkler Electorate: Carina Speedway 20 13:58 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to inform the House of the reincarnation of the Bundaberg Motorsports Complex-Carina Speedway. The last meeting was held there in June 2006, but I am sure you can hear it, Madam Speaker—the engines are rumbling! It is due to reopen in September 2015. I would like to congratulate Pete Basmadjian and his group of hardworking volunteers for the work that they have been doing to get the speedway back up and racing this year in 2015. You will find those volunteers at the site most weekends, bringing the facility up to specification to meet all the safety rules and regulations. It is an area that promotes safe motorsports, and it will attract visitors to our region. Back in its heyday, Carina used to attract thousands of people on a single night just to watch motor racing. It is a fantastic local event, and I am very pleased to get it underway. It will help out with our accommodation providers, our tourism and our local suppliers for the trade. The facility will cater for various forms of motorsport. I am very pleased that it will be underway very soon. In the brief time I have left, I would like to inform the House about the CQ BMX titles which took place in Bundaberg and which I attended in an unofficial capacity. What a fantastic event! It is great for young kids and fantastic for exercise. They were five metres off the ground and then down they went and stacked the whole lot—but it was a wonderful event. The SPEAKER 10000 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 20 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent from question time for the remainder of this week as he attends the International Transport Forum in Germany. The Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 20 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor welcomes the Treasurer's commitment last night to talk to the states about removing the GST on women's sanitary products. Therefore, will the Prime Minister support excluding women's sanitary products from the GST in return for extending the GST to Netflix and downloads? 14:01 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah As the Treasurer indicated last night, there is a long history to this matter. Perhaps if we had our time over again, things would have been done differently—but we are in the situation that we are in. I can fully understand why some people, including people on both sides of this parliament, would want to remove the GST from health products of this type. I can fully understand that. Ms King interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Ballarat will desist. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 But, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, the GST is a tax which is imposed for the states. It is spent by the states. Changes to the GST are absolutely a matter for the states and territories. If all the states and territories can agree, obviously we are happy to hear from them. So I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he might like to talk to the Premier of South Australia, he might like to talk to the Premier of Queensland and he might like to talk to the Premier of Victoria. If they all agree, well, then they can have a discussion with the premiers of Western Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania, and then all of them can have a discussion with the Commonwealth. Budget 21 14:02 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the budget will support Australian small business and create jobs. 14:03 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I am tempted to say that the member for Brisbane was an outstanding small business person, but her small business became a pretty big business over the years because of her great abilities at running it. I do thank the member for Brisbane for her question. I also thank her for arranging my visit on Sunday to Dolci Sapori, which makes the best Italian sweets in Queensland. The very best Italian sweets in Queensland are from Dolci—with an 'i' not an 'e'—Dolci Sapori. It is an absolutely outstanding place, and thank you for taking me there. This budget is the latest step in the government's plan to build a strong, safe and prosperous future for all Australians. Every member of this parliament should be pleased that, since September 2013, more than a quarter of a million jobs have been created because this government is open for business and, under this government, Australia is open for business. We are particularly open for small business because small business is 96 per cent of all business. Small business creates about 50 per cent of all employment in this country. Small business is the engine room of the economy. As we know that small businesspeople mortgage their homes to invest, to employ and to serve their communities. When small business does well, everyone in our country does well. The public have certainly noticed, the Australian people have certainly noticed, that this is the best budget ever for small business. They have noticed the instant asset write-off. They certainly noticed it at Dolci Sapori. This government does not just make it easier for small business to create jobs; it helps unemployed people to take the jobs that are there. It changes the economics of employing people. Some of the budget initiatives include a $1.2 billion national wage subsidy pool to target long-term unemployment. As well, there is a private sector Work for the Dole program. If someone has been unemployed for six months, they can do four weeks of work experience with a private sector employer while staying on benefits. This budget is not just good for jobs; it is good for job seekers as well. It is a budget for small business, it is a budget for confidence and it is a budget for jobs. The best form of welfare is work. We understand that. I hope members opposite appreciate it. Budget 21 14:06 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Independent NATSEM modelling shows a typical family will be more than $6,000 a year worse off because of the Prime Minister's budget. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 There will be silence on my right! Mr Dutton interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Deakin will desist! Mr Morrison interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 There will be silence on my right, and that includes the Minister for Social Services. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Shall I start again, Madam Speaker? The SPEAKER 10000 You may. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Independent NATSEM modelling shows a typical family will be more than $6,000 a year worse off because of the Prime Minister's budget. Does the Prime Minister deny that families will be worse off because of his budget cuts? 14:07 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah The families of Australia will be better off as a result of this budget. The economy will be stronger as a result of this budget, and every single Australian will benefit from a stronger economy. The safe, strong and prosperous future that this government is building for all Australians will be underpinned by the budget that we have just brought down. Ms Owens interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Parramatta will desist! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Yesterday we asked members opposite to release the modelling, and it is now pretty obvious why they were so reluctant to release it. As we suspected, the NATSEM analysis fails to take into account any of the benefits involved in moving from welfare to work. It is a static analysis that does not take into account the benefits of moving from welfare to work—that is point number one. But there is more. Point number two is that the modelling does not model this year's budget. NATSEM, probably concerned that they were being verballed by members opposite, put the modelling up on their website and it is now absolutely crystal clear that, quite contrary to what members opposite claimed yesterday, this is not a model of the 2015 budget. Most significantly, the analysis includes measures that the Labor Party actually supports and, in some cases, has voted for in the parliament. This modelling has been used and abused by members opposite. It is no wonder that NATSEM put the modelling—the modelling that the Labor Party was trying to hide—up on their website, because NATSEM appreciated that their work was being used and abused by members opposite. This government is determined to do the right thing by the people of Australia. If you do the right thing by small businesses you do the right thing by jobs, and if you do the right thing by jobs you do the best thing for the people of Australia. Northern Australia 22 14:09 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House how the government is helping the people of Northern Australia to develop new economic opportunities? How will the budget help small businesses create growth and jobs, especially in Durack? 14:10 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I thank the honourable member for Durack for her question. Mr Snowdon interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Lingiari will desist or leave. The choice is his. Mr HOCKEY DK6 I think the Prime Minister was being a little bit modest in his original answer when he said this is the best budget for small business, because I think it is the best budget for Northern Australia as well. It is a budget that helps to facilitate the opportunities for the opening up of the great north—the great north that many people have talked about. In fact, now that I think about it, I remember Kevin Rudd going up to Northern Australia during the last election campaign and proclaiming that he was going to make the whole of Northern Australia tax-free. We do not forget Kevin Rudd over here, and, from what I hear of the upcoming ABC political series, Kevin Rudd does not forget Bill Shorten either. That is what I gleaned last night in the green room at Q&A—this is going to be a very interesting series about the Labor Party! Mr Dreyfus HWG Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. This cannot possibly be relevant to the question that the Treasurer was asked. The SPEAKER 10000 The member will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call. Mr HOCKEY DK6 If it is not relevant now, it will be relevant next week! We believe in Northern Australia and we want to invest in Northern Australia; that is why the Prime Minister committed $100 million to improve the cattle routes across Northern Australia. Also, significantly, we are investing $5 billion in a Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, a loan facility to help develop pipelines and ports and roads—the major infrastructure that is going to open up the great north. As the member for Durack knows, that—coupled with our small business initiatives in the budget—is going to help 12,700 small businesses in her electorate. The Labor Party knows a lot about small businesses, because they have turned big businesses into small businesses over the years. They are experts at that, and in turning small government into big government. They turn small government into big government and big business into small business. That is the expertise of the modern Labor Party. We know that there are 18,000 small businesses in Australia that are exporting, and we know that they can do more. So we are facilitating the future with our initiatives on accelerated depreciation, on reducing the company tax rate for small business, on reducing the tax rate for unincorporated small businesses—the people that the Leader of the Opposition forgot; those 1.5 million sole traders and partners out there who were forgotten by the Leader of the Opposition but are always remembered by us. We are not just the best friend of small business, we are the best friend of Northern Australia. Mr Snowdon interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Lingiari will desist or leave. The choice is his. He is warned. Budget 22 14:13 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Prime Minister. According to the Liberal Party, NATSEM is Australia's foremost modelling consultant. Given that independent NATSEM modelling shows that a typical family will be more than $6,000 a year worse off because of the Prime Minister's budget, can the Prime Minister outline the assumptions in the government's own modelling that shows the impact of the government's changes on families, and when will the Prime Minister release the Treasury's modelling? Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, a point of order under standing order 100(d)(i): a statement was made about the belief of the Liberal Party, and I ask that you insist that the questioner authenticate that. The SPEAKER 10000 Well, I am sorry, but I regret to inform the Manager of Opposition Business that he has just performed a home goal. That makes the question out of order. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Isaacs will remove himself under 94(a). The member for Isaacs then left the chamber. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, a point of order: with respect, you cannot rule a question out of order for being within the standing orders. I raised a standing order— The SPEAKER 10000 The member will resume his seat or join the member for Isaacs. Budget 23 14:16 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister inform the House of how the government is helping small business to have a go in my electorate of Robertson and indeed right around Australia? And how will the budget help create jobs and increase opportunity? 14:16 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley What a champion the 10,700 small businesses of Robertson have in their member; what a champion. Whenever I am there I am reminded again that small business and family enterprises are the economy of the Central Coast, and they are lucky to have such a great advocate. And it has been a pleasure to hear what an overwhelmingly positive response there has been on the Central Coast to the government's jobs and small business package. It hits the right mark, because it is what small business wants, what they need to grow, and how we can best support small business to create more jobs. We are committed to actually delivering on these commitments. Contrast that with Labor. And who could forget the hapless member for Gorton? He was Labor's small business minister No. 5 or 6. I cannot remember; there was a revolving door—five Labor small business ministers in 15 months. And there he was, on budget eve, spruiking a small business company tax cut, and then when the budget was delivered it was not actually in it. A lot can happen under Labor overnight, can't it, Bill? We will see more about that in the television series that is coming up. But small businesses know that they have been stooged again by Labor. The coalition will not let the small business community down. We have been working hard to create the right economic conditions so that the economy has been able to create a quarter of a million more jobs. And the centrepiece of our budget is all about energising enterprise for small business—a fair dinkum small business company tax cut to bring it to the lowest it has been in almost 50 years. And we will not just talk about it; we will deliver it. We will make sure it is delivered, and also the immediate tax deduction for any and all assets purchased by small business, up to $20,000. These measures will help us to recover the 519,000 jobs in small business lost under Labor and will provide the momentum so that small businesses can create more jobs. That is our goal, and that has been understood by those who have looked at the package—responsible, measured, welcome initiatives that will get behind the enterprising men and women of small business. ACCI said that it is encouraging that the government is looking after the 1.7 million unincorporated small businesses. The Australian Newsagents Federation is talking about how it will definitely create further impetus and incentive for our members. Dan Farmer of the Central Coast business chamber said that the budget may allow the small business owner to employ that extra apprentice or extend the hours of a current employee. Mike Waller from Peninsular Office Supplies in Umina said that this was a great initiative and that he can get that much-needed new delivery van. Ken Duncan, world-renowned photographer in Erina Heights, is talking about buying new cameras. This is the story of enterprise. The only thing people are uncertain about is whether Labor are going to muck around with this. Are they going to stand in the road? Labor, you did not do anything for small business when in office. Make sure you get behind this package and secure its early, safe and certain passage. Budget 23 14:19 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister told the member for Capricornia that around 8,000 working families in her electorate will be worse off because of the budget? 14:19 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I would never mislead the member for Capricornia, so of course I would not say that to her. Agriculture 23 14:20 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Minister, I am so pleased to see the commitment by the government to decentralisation—in particular, the decision to relocate three regional development corporations. Can you please outline why decentralisation is important to Australia, and particularly the benefits that will flow to my creative, innovative and totally flexible electorate through the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation coming to Albury-Wodonga? 14:20 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for her question and note that the Victorian RIRDC's woman of the year, Julie Aldous, was from Mansfield. It stands to reason that if one were to suggest that we move the cotton RDC from Narrabri back to Canberra then that would be an absurdity. It probably is part of the result of the cotton RDC being in Narrabri that Australia has the highest yields in cotton in the world. And I note some of the issues that have been brought forward by the Labor Party about relocations, where they say it is outrageous. The actual total costs of all the relocations is less than that of the security refurbishment of Parliament House. It gives you a sense of what we want to do on this side, because this side of the parliament believes in decentralisation. This side of the parliament believes that we can create centres of excellence. This side of the parliament believes that we have a vision for the future, a plan for the future, and that we want to make sure that the largesse of government does not reside just in Canberra but in other places as well. I also note that a discussion is happening in Canberra right now—it is a great city and will continue to be a great city—about a light rail that will cost in excess of $700 million. The reason they give is congestion. The way to deal with congestion is, obviously, to start looking at alternatives. It is not just this side of the parliament that believes in moving. I have been reading the state Labor Party manifesto of Western Australia, which believes in decentralisation, which believes in moving to Bunbury, which believes in moving to Albany, but of course that view is not held on the other side of the parliament. What we want to do is make sure that we go about the process of giving tertiary students and university students a line of sight to a career in agriculture so that we can duplicate the great success that we have had in places such as Narrabri and other towns. Might I also remind people on the other side that, although they might not support relocations, their state system— Ms McGowan 123674 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order about the relevance of the answer to the question, but I think he has finished now. The SPEAKER 10000 I think not. I think the minister has the call. Mr JOYCE E5D No, I am not. I think it is very important that we understand that it is Labor Party policy to relocate—here it is— The SPEAKER 10000 No props. Mr JOYCE E5D They are off to Bunbury, they are off to everywhere, but they are not off to very many places in this joint. Budget 24 14:24 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Treasurer. Given the Treasurer was forced to apologise for calling new mums double-dippers on national television last night and given the Treasurer's own budget papers refer to double-dippers, will the Treasurer now remove these references from his budget and abandon his entire plan to cut Paid Parental Leave for new mums? 14:24 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney Well, no, because the saving associated with this initiative is part of the program to pay for additional spending on child care. The fact is that we have had to spend in excess of $5½ billion extra on child care already and we have also committed to an extra $3½ billion in response to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, and what is more is we have committed an extra $900 million to preschools across Australia because the Labor Party stopped funding preschools. The Labor Party stopped funding preschools in Australia. Shame! They stopped funding preschools in Australia. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a). Mr HOCKEY DK6 We stepped up to the plate and said, 'We have to find the savings to pay for the gross mismanagement of the Labor Party and the malevolence of the Labor Party towards preschool children and the kindergartens they are at.' So I said, 'Well, I'm sorry. We've got to find the savings.' One way of finding the savings is to do what is appropriate in relation to the Paid Parental Leave scheme set up by the Labor Party, and that is to ensure that $11½ thousand is available to mums when they have a child. But, if they are being paid the same or more by their employer, then they cannot access the government's scheme. In particular, public servants who do access a taxpayer funded scheme should not be able to also access a separate scheme through Centrelink. I wish there were a magic pudding. I wish there were this money tree that the Leader of the Opposition seems to assume exists, but there is no money tree. Ultimately, the government is in a position where it has to borrow money every day just to pay the bills. When we do have new expenditure to respond to the needs and wants of mums and dads, if we are going to have that new expenditure, then we have to have the savings to pay for it. This is one of those responsible measures and it does just that. Budget 25 14:27 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the minister update the House on the benefits of the budget to the agriculture sector, particularly for farmers in my electorate of Page? Also, how will the budget help create jobs and increase opportunity? 14:27 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question. Might I say that he, more than most, would know about the turnarounds that we have had in the cattle industry for one—turnarounds that have meant that in the last fortnight we have seen prices of $3.13 a kilogram for cattle in Wagga, $3.16 in Tamworth and an average price of $2.90 a kilogram in Dubbo. I know the honourable member is himself a cattle producer. He speaks of the budget and what it means for people who, for the first time in a long while, are starting to make real money. People who make real money are obviously looking for the capacity to reinvest in their farm. It was during the budget just past that we managed to deliver a tax deduction for those whose turnover is less than $2 million a year, and that is a substantial cattle producer. That deduction would mean that someone at Kempsey or someone at Kyogle could go out and buy a new welder and write it completely off at a cost of less than $20,000; a compressor that costs less than $20,000 and write that completely off; a motorbike—we do not want to write it off in the paddock but write it off for tax purposes—and write that completely off; a cattle crush that costs less than $20,000. Why that is important is that these things are manufactured in our nation. These are things that are manufactured in Australia. It is a stimulus to the manufacturing industry of our nation. I am also happy to state that we are in consultations with the Treasurer and with industry about bringing forward the write-offs on water reticulation, even for companies and organisations whose turnover is in excess of $2 million. This is a great stimulus to the refurbishment of the irrigation precincts and to the establishment of the capacity to make sure that we make our areas more drought prepared. Not only that, we are consulting for the write-off of 100 per cent of fences in the area and also to make sure that we can write off hay sheds and silos so that people get a greater capacity to market their grain. This is all part of this budget. On top of that, if the turnover of a small business is below $2 million, they get a small business corporate tax deduction of 1½ per cent. We all know that, as a partnership, both individuals get the tax free threshold; on top of that, we are allowing a small business rebate to the value of $1,000. All these things are part of what this government has done for people on the land. It does not even mention the $330 million we put towards drought. It is a clear statement that a change in government really does make a change to the lives of people on the land. Superannuation 25 14:30 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Yesterday during question time the Treasurer said, 'We have absolutely no plans to change super.' Last night, when asked about superannuation, the Treasurer said, 'We've got to look at the future of the entire retirement income system,' and, 'I don't subscribe to never ever.' Who is right—the Treasurer after lunch or the Treasurer after dinner? 14:31 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney The Treasurer is always right. And there was a Treasurer once who said, 'The government has returned the budget to surplus three years ahead of schedule and ahead of any other major advanced economy.' Chris Bowen said that. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. There is no way the comments that the Treasurer is currently making are in any way relevant to the question he was asked. You ruled the other day— The SPEAKER 10000 The member will resume his seat. I would say to the Manager of Opposition Business that when a question is asked, 'Is the Treasurer right after lunch or after dinner?' it is a very broad-ranging question, and he is quite relevant. The Treasurer. Mr HOCKEY DK6 And, whilst I do not do that every day, there is a common theme here that the Treasurer is correct. I would say also to the honourable member for McMahon that he was the one that said, 'The problem with changing superannuation is that it creates uncertainty for and concern by people who are making voluntary contributions to their superannuation.' The member for McMahon said that only two years ago, when he gave a guarantee that he would not change superannuation for five years. So I would say to the honourable member for McMahon that our position is absolutely crystal clear: we are not going to introduce new taxes on superannuation. The Labor Party wants to introduce new taxes on superannuation. Ms Ryan interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Lalor will leave if she insists on interjecting. She is not in her seat. Mr HOCKEY DK6 We are not changing the rules on superannuation. The Labor Party wants to change the rules on superannuation. How would you judge that commitment? Because we have not changed superannuation and the Labor Party did change superannuation—$9 billion worth of changes after the Labor Party gave a commitment in the 2007 election that they would not change superannuation, not one jot, not one tittle. Remember that? Not one tittle. Remember that? So I would say no wonder the member for Lilley is looking down at his Solitaire iPad and no wonder he has the member for Rankin lobbying on his behalf around the backbench for him to come back. You laugh; he is not laughing. He is burying his face in his Solitaire. I would say to the honourable member for McMahon: there is a clear point of difference between the coalition and the Labor Party. The Labor Party wants to tax superannuation and the coalition is totally opposed to that. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 26 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:34 The SPEAKER SE4 Before I call the member for McMillan, I wish to advise the House that we have in the gallery today the federal council of the Isolated Children's Parents' Association, and we make you most welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 26 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Employment 26 14:34 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I am with the school that thought the Prime Minister was always right. My question is to the Assistant Minister for Employment. Minister, will you update the House on how the budget improves the employment opportunities for young Australians? Mr Perrett HVP You might do it in two minutes and 20 seconds. The SPEAKER SE4 And the member for Moreton has two minutes to decide whether he wishes to leave. 14:35 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I thank the member for his question. I must say that the Treasurer brought down a budget that is good for jobs. It builds on the 250,000 jobs that have been created over the life of this government, at some three times the rate of job creation that occurred under the last year of the Labor government. We on this side realise that many young job seekers are struggling to enter the workforce. As I get around the country, young people are telling me that they cannot get a job because they do not have experience and they cannot get experience because they do not have a job. That is why we have introduced the National Work Experience Program, to provide young people with four weeks work experience in a workplace so that they can demonstrate to a potential employer just what they can do and the benefits that they can bring to that workplace. That is why we are making wage subsidies more flexible—so that it is easier for employers to take on young people. The $6,500 youth employment subsidy will be available sooner and more flexibly and will be better tailored to meet the needs of employers. That has to be good for our young people. Some young people will struggle greatly to get into the workforce. That is why we have also introduced the National Youth Employment Strategy, a strategy that invests $330 million to assist young people in getting a job. The $212 million Transition to Work Program provides services such as coaching and pre-employment support. We have $106 million to support vulnerable job seekers—such as young people with mental illnesses, which is a barrier to employment. That is why we have a greater focus on helping early school leavers. All of this is on top of the $6.8 billion Job Active program that implements an enhanced Work for the Dole program right across— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Grayndler will desist. One more time and you are gone. Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Australia. When you look across the chamber, the situation bleak. The Leader of the Opposition even forgot to mention youth unemployment in his budget reply speech. So focused was he on youth unemployment that he forgot to mention it. When you look at Labor's plan for youth, it is nothing more than a $20 million pilot. Our youth employment strategy assists 15 times more job seekers and provides 15 times the funding to assist young people into the workforce— Ms MacTiernan interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Perth will desist. Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM We have a solution to help young people to get into work; the members opposite simply have no idea. Ms Henderson ZN4 On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I refer to the comment made by the member for Grayndler and I would ask that members refer to members by their proper names. Opposition members interjecting— Ms Henderson ZN4 It was a very derogatory remark. The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Corangamite will resume her seat. I did say to the member for Grayndler that one more utterance from him and he would leave the chamber under 94A. I do find that term offensive, and you are not to use it again. Superannuation 27 14:38 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said: There will be no changes to super. But last night in a discussion about changes to superannuation, the Treasurer said: I don't subscribe to never-ever. So, Prime Minister, who is really always right? The Prime Minister or the Treasurer? 14:39 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Madam Speaker, I will tell you who is always wrong, and it is the Leader of the Opposition. One of the reasons he is invariably wrong is that he invariably verbals people—whether it is NATSEM, whether it is the Treasurer, whether it is what was said by coalition frontbenchers a week or a fortnight ago. Let me make the position of this government absolutely crystal clear. We said before the last election that there would be no adverse changes to superannuation in this term of parliament and we have absolutely kept that commitment. I have said, and let me repeat it to the parliament, that we have no plans—no plans whatsoever—for any future changes to superannuation. Let me go further and say that superannuation money does not belong to the government; it belongs to the people. The money that the Australian people put into their superannuation accounts is not a piggy bank for government to raid, it belongs to them. It is their hard-earned assets. We respect that what belongs to the people stays in the pockets of the people. We do not believe that people's hard-earned superannuation savings are something to be raided by government whenever it has a problem. That is what the Leader of the Opposition believes. He has already said that he wants to tax people's superannuation savings more. And he has form, Madam Speaker, because the government, in which he was a senior minister, nine separate times raided the superannuation savings of Australians. Some $9 billion was ripped out of superannuation by members opposite when they were in government. Then, of course, there was the stealth tax on bank accounts. They were not just stealing money from the cookie jars of the widows, they were also stealing what was in the piggy banks of the children. They have form! The Leader of the Opposition has form when it comes to putting his clammy fingers into the pockets of the Australian people—when he comes raiding with his hammer, smashing the piggy banks of Australians. The Leader of the Opposition has form. I have a very simple message to the people of Australia: 'Your superannuation savings are safe under this government. No savings are safe under members opposite because they think your money belongs to them.' National Security 27 14:42 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House on the action the government is taking to stop young Australian women and girls from being radicalised and supporting terrorist organisations? 14:42 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and I note her concern about this very serious issue. Preventing the radicalisation of our young people, particularly young women and girls, is a top priority for this government. Members would be aware of the disturbing reports of a Sydney mother who, it is claimed, has abandoned her two children to live under the brutal regime of Daesh. I am deeply pessimistic about the fate of this apparently troubled young woman, but I am thankful that she left her children in the safety of Australia and did not put them in mortal danger, as others have done. Disturbingly this is not an isolated case. Of the thousands and thousands of foreign terrorist fighters who have travelled to Daesh controlled areas, as many as 550 are women from western Europe, from the United States, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. The French government has estimated that 115 French women have joined or are supporting Daesh. We estimate that about 30 to 40 Australian women are actively engaged in or supporting the terrorists in Syria and Iraq. It seems that Daesh has taken atrocities against women to a new level of violence. UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict Zainab Bangura has recently returned from Syria and Iraq. She has cited appalling cases, including a 20-year-old girl who was burnt alive because she refused to perform an extreme sexual act. Another who was traded by Daesh fighters over 20 times. In fact, as Special Representative Bangura said to the media on her return, ISIL or Daesh: … have institutionalised sexual violence and the brutalisation of women as a central aspect of their ideology and operations, using it as a tactic of terrorism to advance their key strategic objectives. She went on to describe how women were promised to fighters and how ISIL raised funds through trafficking, prostitution and ransoms. Sexual violence is used to displace populations; to punish, humiliate and demoralise dissenters; to extract information for intelligence purposes; and to dismantle social, familial and community structures in order to construct a new caliphate. It is simply incomprehensible that, while streams of innocent young women and girls are desperately trying to get away from Daesh, young Australian women and girls are seeking to join them. So combatting the ways which young Australian women and men are being lured by this extremist ideology is our top priority. We have committed $40 million in new funding for intervention programs, community initiatives working with the community over coming months to prevent young people leaving this country to join terrorist organisations. This government is committed to combatting extremism, to preventing radicalisation and to keeping our young people, including our young women and girls, safe from terrorists. Fuel Prices 28 14:45 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the fact that the government's petrol tax hike raises $19 billion over the next decade. Why does the Prime Minister think that improving the budget bottom line by $14 billion over 10 years is a tax grab but raising $19 billion in new taxes from low- and middle-income earners is fair? Is the Prime Minister aware that 19 billion is a bigger number than 14 billion? 14:46 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah We have a very clear position on fuel tax: we think that it should be indexed. Ms Owens interjecting— Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Parramatta will desist as will the member for Rankin. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 We think that it should be indexed. When the fuel excise was introduced by the Hawke government, it was indexed. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 And the member for Jagajaga. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 In this important respect, we want to go back to the good example of the Hawke government. Once upon a time, there were Labor governments that were fair dinkum. Once upon a time, there were Labor governments that had a plan. Once upon a time, there were Labor leaders who understood that the best form of welfare is work, and there were Labor leaders who were interested in serious reform, not just in mindless negativity and opposition for opposition's sake. We have brought down a budget. It is the best budget ever for small business. There are $5.5 billion worth of tax cuts for small business, and the great thing about the tax cuts that we are bringing down for small business is that they will unleash far more in investment by the private sector. When you give small business an instant asset write-off for purchases up to $20,000, that costs government a certain amount of money but it unleashes so much more from the private sector. When members opposite want to stimulate the economy, they take the public's money to spend it on the things that they think are important. When we want to boost the economy, we say to people, 'You spend your money on the things that you think matter, and we will give you a tax cut; we will leave more of your money in your pocket,' because we work with the people of Australia. We trust the people of Australia. We trust the small businesses of Australia to know what works for them, what works for their staff and what works for their customers. That is why this is the best budget ever for the small businesses of Australia. We have a plan. Members opposite do not like our plan—fair enough; they are entitled not to like our plan. Tell us your plan. Mr Husic 91219 We have. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 They say, 'We have'. Well, what we have heard so far is that the carbon tax comes back; a superannuation tax comes on; if the iron ore price goes up, the mining tax comes back; and, most of all, the people smugglers and Bowen's boats come back. National Security 29 14:49 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin My question is to the Minister for Justice. Will the minister advise the House what steps the government is taking to tackle violent extremism in Australia? 14:49 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for Deakin for that question and acknowledge the hard work that he does in his electorate. As the foreign minister has reminded the House, the need for us to work with the community to stop those who are drawn down the very dark path of radicalisation is more urgent than ever given further evidence that Australians are continuing to travel to Iraq and Syria. We know that more than 100 Australians are already involving themselves directly in those conflicts, despite the repeated warnings of this government that it is illegal to do so. The reason that our warnings cannot be clearer is highlighted by the fact that almost 30 Australians have already been killed fighting in Syria and Iraq. The examples that we have about people who are drawn to those conflicts show us that there is no single personality type, culture or—as the foreign minister has said—even gender that is vulnerable to radicalisation. As a community, we need to start recognising that there are signs of people who are moving down this dark path of radicalisation or are being tempted by terrorist propaganda. We know that when people are going down this path they will exhibit changes to their behaviour, and those changes can be recognised by family members, friends or social groups. The government is already providing the support needed to turn those who are susceptible from these violent and terrible ideologies. Because, ultimately, countering violent extremism involves not only strong security and law enforcement but also effective community engagement. The government's approach to CVE comprises four tiers: building strength in diversity and investing in social cohesion, focused work with communities and institutions where people are vulnerable to radicalisation, tearing down and countering extremist propaganda, and intervention and diversion of radicalised or radicalising individuals. The government has tripled investment in countering violent extremism programs from $3 million per year to over $40 million over four years, and $22 million of this money will be spent countering this violent extremism online. As we know, despite the medieval nature of Daesh and the barbarity of that organisation, they are very effective at using modern technologies to groom people, in the same way that paedophiles groom people online. This government has also committed $13 million for a range of Living Safe Together initiatives, and nearly $2 million of this has already been spent on 34 community organisations to help them develop the skills to turn individuals away from violent and hateful ideologies. We have also spent $2 million delivering, in partnership with our state and territory colleagues, programs from the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee. We cannot afford to wait to take action until people have been radicalised and formed an intent to do us harm. We will relentlessly prosecute those who might seek to do the community harm, but will also continue to work with the community to stop people from falling victim to these violent ideologies. Budget 29 14:53 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's own budget papers, which show the cost to the budget of superannuation tax concessions outstripping the cost of the age pension in just four years. Given most of these concessions go to high-income earners, how is this either fair or sustainable? 14:53 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I would say to the honourable member, as he has said previously, that people want stability and certainty around the rules governing superannuation. He wants to have it both ways. Before the last election he said there will be stability and certainty for five years, and now, for the second time, he is proposing changes within that five-year time frame. The fact is, Australian superannuants are now facing lower economic returns—lower returns on investment—than they would have expected some time ago, because of lower global interest rates. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has said that. Central bankers around the world are saying that. We are facing a period when we are going to have lower returns than may have been previously expected. That is one of the reasons why the coalition is determined not to impose any new taxes on superannuation, because when people are getting low returns they will get even lower returns if the government comes along and takes money off them. But that is exactly what the Labor Party wants to do. The Labor Party has announced that they are going to introduce a new tax on Australian superannuation. Why are they doing that? Because, as I have been saying for more than 12 months now, they are in a policy cul-de-sac. They are going around the country pledging everything to everyone. They are opposing every possible saving, even the savings they took to the last election, and they now, as they get closer to an election, find themselves in a policy cul-de-sac where they have made promises they cannot deliver, made pledges they cannot afford and proposed savings that are not deliverable. How do we know that? Because we are keeping a tab. Labor has made $58.6 billion of promises, and not one dollar of saving is going to deliver that. They have a multinational tax proposal that everyone rubbishes and that they will not release the assumptions on. They have a plan on superannuation—damn right they do; that you can believe. They will be imposing a tax on your superannuation. And when it comes to everything else, they are even opposing the savings that they took to the last election—savings that improved the budget bottom line, that they fought an election on, and that they are now voting against in the Senate. In this place, you have to be consistent. You have to be predictable. The problem for the Labor Party is they have a weak leader—an insipid leader; a man that runs around the country more worried about protecting his own hide than protecting the interests of the Australian people. Carbon Pricing 30 14:56 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on how the government is reducing emissions without the world's biggest carbon tax? What threats exist to government plans to keep electricity prices down? 14:57 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Leichhardt, who not only voted to repeal the carbon tax, along with every member of this side of the House, but also voted for lower electricity prices—from Cairns to Cooktown to Cape York. Do you know what? He did not just vote for lower electricity prices; he delivered them. After the carbon tax was repealed we had the largest decrease in electricity prices in Australian history. More than that, we had decreases in gas prices. We had the impact of the carbon tax taken off fertilisers. We had decreases on a massive scale in refrigerant costs. These were real changes. And, by the way, we took away $5½ billion of giveaways to brown coal producers for no action at all. He also voted, though, for the introduction of the Emissions Reduction Fund. We recently had the first auction under the Emissions Reduction Fund. Do know what that produced? Forty-seven million tonnes of abatement—four times more abatement in just the first auction than the entire carbon tax experiment. And it did it at a price of $13.95, or about one per cent of the more than $1,300 per tonne of abatement under the carbon tax. More reductions at a massively lower cost without an electricity tax—that is what the member for Leichhardt voted for. In his electorate we also saw the Olkola Aboriginal Corporation put forward a savannah management program. They were successful on a lowest-cost basis, and they are providing 455,000 tonnes of abatement by maintaining savannah land, providing Indigenous ranger jobs, improving biodiversity and providing income for the local community whilst reducing almost half a million tonnes of emissions. But the Labor Party has not learned the lesson. The member for McMahon visited the National Press Club last week in what can only be called a bravura performance. Whilst he was there he reconfirmed that the carbon tax is back. They will be bringing back the carbon tax at the next election. What does this mean? It means higher electricity prices because, let us be clear, they are voting for higher electricity prices for mums and dads, for small businesses, for pensioners. So the choice will be absolutely crystal clear: real emissions reductions without a carbon tax with tax cuts and lower electricity prices, or higher electricity prices, higher gas prices and higher cost of living under Labor. Inborn Error of Metabolism 30 15:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I wrote to him about a relatively small number of Australian children who live with a condition called inborn error of metabolism including PKU. It is a rare genetic condition that requires medically prescribed food. Will the Prime Minister reconsider his budget cut of more than $250 a month that goes to each of these 900 families? 15:00 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah This is a serious question, and it is obviously an important subject. Yes, the Howard government some years ago introduced a program to help people with a condition inborn error of metabolism. Since that program was introduced in, I think, 2001 there have been a number of developments. First of all, there are now far more regular supermarket items, like cornflour that can replace wheat flour and rice milk that can replace dairy milk, for people managing protein disorders. The Minister for Health said the other day: Foods for people managing protein metabolic disorder are now more readily available and cheaper than when the programme began … The other new development is that, over the years, there have been a number of new medicines introduced onto the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that assist with the specific nutritional requirements for people with protein disorders. So my understanding is that the program itself cost something like $19 million or $20 million. New medicines costing far more than that that deal with this issue have been put onto the PBS, and that is why the government has taken the decision that it has. Budget 31 15:02 Mr TONY SMITH 00APG Casey My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. I ask the Assistant Treasurer to update the House on what the government is doing to strengthen the economy and bring government spending under control, and I further ask the Assistant Treasurer how the government's approach differs from previous approaches. 15:02 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Casey for his question and his strong contribution to matters economic in this place. He is also one of a small band of optimistic Carlton supporters in this place. This budget delivers for families, jobs and growth and it reigns in government spending. We inherited government spending that was increasing at 3.6 per cent, and the IMF said that, of 17 OECD countries, Australia had the highest and fastest rate of spending growth. But as a result of our policies we have reduced spending growth to about 1.5 per cent over the forward estimates, and debt under us will be $110 billion lower than it would be under the Labor Party. I was asked about any alternative approaches. The biggest alternative approach and the biggest risk comes from the Leader of the Opposition, the man sitting opposite. Consider this: in his budget-in-reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition spent an additional $220 million every minute. He started the speech with a $52 billion black hole and he finished the speech with a $58.6 billion black hole. Forget Lee Majors, the six million dollar man. We now have Bill Shorten, the sixty billion dollar man! Consider this: in Labor's year of big ideas, all the Leader of the Opposition can come up with is higher taxes. Whether it is a reheated carbon tax or whether it is a slug on people's super, more than 400,000 Australians' savings will be hit. Consider this: the closest the Leader of the Opposition has ever come to a budget surplus was in the newsletter that he released to his electorate where he said: … back to surplus on time, as promised … Now, you can still get this community newsletter on his website today. It is still there. We know the Leader of the Opposition can be quite profound: 'The future is the present.' …everybody is somebody. And, If you don't know where you're going, every road'll get you there. But, dare I say it, he has matched it in a press conference during budget week. When asked about his economic plan for the country, he said: If you can see down the road what's coming, then what you've got to do is get on with it and deal with it. I do not know what Labor is dealing with, but it is definitely not dealing with the debt and deficit that Labor left behind. Budget 31 15:05 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith My question is to the Treasurer. On national television last night, the Treasurer was asked how much he had cut from the foreign aid budget. The Treasurer replied: Ah, well, I mean, from memory, it'd be well in excess of five billion, right. But we've done it on the basis—but don't hold me to that figure … The Treasurer's own budget papers clearly show a massive $11.3 billion has been cut from foreign aid. Doesn't the fact that the Treasurer has no idea about some of the biggest cuts in his own budget confirm just how sloppy he is? 15:06 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I was right. I was absolutely right last night. I said it was more than $5 billion. I was also absolutely right when I said last night that we are the 13th biggest donor in the world. And if the Leader of the Opposition is unable to restrain his foreign affairs spokesman, Australia would be the biggest foreign aid donor in the world—probably No. 1—because she wants to increase it by $18 billion. That is another bill coming to Bill. I want to know where that $18 billion of extra— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Parramatta will resume her seat. The Treasurer will please refer to members by their correct titles. Mr HOCKEY DK6 I was right last night; I was right today. If it were possible to do everything, the only way you would be able to do that would be to have big surpluses. Once upon a time the Australian government did have big surpluses. That was when the coalition was last in government. We inherited from Labor a budget haemorrhaging at $133 million a day. The Labor Party kept saying they wanted to keep increasing foreign aid even to countries that they themselves were giving foreign aid away from. That was a Labor Party solution: to give foreign aid to countries that they themselves were giving foreign aid from. Mr Shorten interjecting— Mr HOCKEY DK6 Those countries were taking our foreign aid and then going and giving away foreign aid themselves, in case you do not understand that. No, you do not! You do not know where you are going, do you? Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I refer you to page 505 of House of Representatives Practice: Although there is no specific rule set down by standing order, the House follows the practice of requiring Members' speeches to be in English. The comments currently being made from the Treasurer make no sense at all. The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. Quite clearly the Manager of Opposition Business knows that is not a correct point of order. If there are any more of those, he will be leaving the chamber. Infrastructure 32 15:09 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to improve infrastructure in my home state of Victoria? Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Moreton has pushed just too far and will leave under 94(a). The member for Moreton then left the chamber. 15:09 Mr BRIGGS IYU Mayo I thank the member for Corangamite, who is a fierce advocate for Geelong and the Corangamite area. She is a fierce advocate for stage 2 of the East West Link, along with the Great Ocean Road upgrade, which the member the Grayndler refused to fund when he was a minister. This government is committing $25 million to that great tourism icon in Australia. The Princes Highway West: the $185.5 million upgrade, with a sod just turned a few weeks ago by the member for Corangamite. The Western Highway Ballarat to Stawell duplication: the member for Wannon and the member for Mallee are also interested in that. The $73 million investment in the Tullamarine Freeway widening, which we are working with the Victorian government to deliver. Members would be aware that last Friday the Prime Minister released the first ever audit of Australia's infrastructure, which is being compiled by Infrastructure Australia. It is a terrific document which highlights that Australia has some very good problems, in particular in Victoria, in that we have significant growth in the city of Melbourne. In fact, some in Melbourne argue that in the next 20 years Melbourne will overtake Sydney as Australia's biggest city. To do that, it will need infrastructure. It will need significant investments in infrastructure. The audit makes a very good point: Melbourne will need an east-west connection. Ms Ryan interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Lalor has been warned and will leave under 94(a). The member for Lalor then left the chamber. Mr BRIGGS IYU It makes the point that the major infrastructure required in Victoria is an east-west connection, which is very consistent with what the Leader of Opposition has said, not just once but twice, in submissions back to Sir Rod Eddington's inquiry in the late— Mr Shorten interjecting— Mr BRIGGS IYU Hang on! I heard he was talking to the Carlton board today. I think he is getting some ideas! Mr Albanese R36 Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked about Victorian infrastructure. To be relevant, he has to speak about the eight per cent of funding— The SPEAKER SE4 The member will resume his seat. Mr BRIGGS IYU He is ready to serve! The East West Link was the project that Dan Andrews got rid of when he came to government, costing Victorian taxpayers nearly $1 billion for no infrastructure. But it is a project which has been very clearly outlined by Infrastructure Australia as very much needed— Mr Husic interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Chifley! Mr BRIGGS IYU and as one of the most important infrastructure projects in Victoria. However, the Prime Minister is very eager that we get on and build projects in Victoria. That is why we have said— Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER SE4 The member for Grayndler will leave under 94(a). The member for Grayndler then left the chamber. Mr BRIGGS IYU to the Andrews government that we will work with the Andrews government to have a Western Distributor project which suits the needs of Victoria and Melbourne. But, to do that, we must see a business case. Last week, when I met with Transurban, they made it very clear that the Victorian government has said: 'We do not want you to send a business case to the federal government.' They want $1½ billion dollars from the federal government, but they will not give us a business case. It is very clear: if the Victorian government wants to work with this government, we will work with them. But they must hand over the evidence for us to do so. Mr Abbott EZ5 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 33 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Jobs 33 15:13 The SPEAKER SE4 I have received a letter from the honourable member for Blaxland proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The importance of planning for the jobs of the future. 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— 15:13 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland When you go to Silicon Valley you meet some extraordinary people. When I was there last year I met an extraordinary Australian. Her name is Tan Le. Tan Le came to Australia as a Vietnamese refugee at the age of four. By the age of 16 she was at university. By the age of 21 she was Young Australian of the Year. By 22, she was a barrister, and by 26 she had set up her first company. She now lives in San Francisco. She is the co-founder of a company called Emotiv. They are a neuro-engineering company. They make devices that read brain signals and can interpret facial expressions. You wear the device on your head. It can be used for everything from gaming—where, instead of a joystick, you can think it and see it on the screen—through to something else which is truly extraordinary. It can be used by quadriplegics to move their wheelchairs. It has the potential to change people's lives all around the world. I asked her why she had set up this business in the United States and not here, at home, in Australia. The answer she gave me is telling. She said, 'It's because that's where the money is and that's where the experience and the skills are.' That story is instructive. We are a special country where incredible things, incredible stories, like this can happen, but we are a small part of an ever-increasingly more competitive world. And we are falling behind. Harvard Business Review published a report the other day that looked at the digital economies of countries around the world. They said that Australia is stalling. Here is why. Remember what Tan told me about money and skills? If you are a start-up with a great idea like Tan's and you want to get access to capital in Australia, it is not as easy as it is in other countries. Our venture-capital industry is small. We spend more on the Melbourne Cup every year than we do on new start-up businesses every year. In other countries you can raise money through crowd funding. The United States introduced crowd-funding laws three years ago. New Zealand did it two years ago. But here in Australia we are still talking about it. In 2013 CAMAC, the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, was asked by the former Labor government to develop a plan to introduce crowd funding. The government has had that plan on its desk for a year. It was given to them in May last year. What has happened in the last 12 months? Nothing—or no evidence that anything has happened. No legislation. We are still waiting for laws to be introduced into this parliament. When the Minister for Communications was asked about this—when he was at Fishburners, only a week ago—when he was asked by start-up entrepreneurs why it was taking so long to introduce crowd-funding laws in Australia, his answer was: 'Well, government is quite hard, actually.' That is the excuse. That is what it said in a newspaper, and I have not heard a personal explanation denying it. He went on and blamed the culture of the bureaucracy in Treasury. They have introduced crowd funding in the United States. They have done it in New Zealand, they have done it in the UK, France, Canada, Italy and even Kenya, but we are still waiting for it here. Apparently, government is a bit hard. We can fix these problems and you can do it quickly if this government introduces legislation into the parliament. What is harder to fix is the skills problem, the skills challenge—the lack of skills, the lack of STEM skills—that we have in Australia. Here is the challenge. We are seeing an increasing drop in the number of low-skilled jobs available in Australia and, in contrast, an increase in the number of high-skilled jobs. Most of those are jobs that require STEM skills: science, technology, engineering and maths. Seventy-five per cent of the fastest-growing jobs in Australia today require STEM skills, and we are not producing enough people with those skills. Let me give you an example. In 2003 about 9,000 people graduated in Australia with ICT degrees. Ten years later that was reduced to 3,446. In other words, the number of people graduating with an ICT degree in Australia, in the last 10 years, has dropped by two-thirds. We have a similar problem at high school when it comes to maths. The number of people studying maths at an intermediate or advanced level, at high school, has dropped by about 35 per cent in the last 20 years. How do we compare with the rest of the world? Sixteen per cent of Australians graduate from university with STEM degrees. South Korea is about double that. In China 41 per cent of students graduate with a STEM degree. In Singapore it is nearly 50 per cent. These are the countries that Australia is competing with. We are already falling behind and making it more expensive to go to university. Introducing $100,000 university degrees is only going to make it harder. Already, employers are finding it hard to get employees with the necessary STEM skills. The chief scientist put out a report two or three weeks ago where he had done a survey of employers. He asked them what they were looking for from employees and how they were able to get employees with STEM skills. They surveyed hundreds of employers. They found that a third of employers could not find the employees they needed with STEM skills, STEM graduates. I was at Google last week. I asked the same question. They have the same problem. Google employs about 1,000 people Australia-wide. About half of them are computer programmers—and half of those come from overseas. The reason for that is they cannot find the workers they need with the skills they need. That is why what Bill Shorten announced, what the Leader of the Opposition announced, only two weeks ago is so important. A plan to build the skills that we need for the jobs of the future—everything from coding in primary school through to training more teachers through to writing off the HECS debts of 100,000 university STEM graduates. That is just the start. If we are going to do this properly we cannot just do it at university or at high school, it has to start at primary school. Last year, in the United Kingdom, they introduced coding in kindergarten. Other countries are doing exactly the same thing: Vietnam, Canada and Singapore. Finland is starting it next year. The United States is trialling it in 30 school districts, right across the country, including Chicago and New York. Why are they doing this? They are doing it because they understand that coding is the literacy of the 21st century. Malcolm Turnbull understands this as well because he has said much the same thing. He understands—like we understand—that students in this century will need to understand coding like we needed to understand English and maths in the last century. It does not mean that everybody is going to become a computer programmer. Of course, that is not going to happen. Not everybody who studies maths becomes a mathematician either, but we use it every day. It is exactly the same here. That is why what we announced in our budget reply is so important. We need our kids not just to be able to use technology but to be able to create technology, not just to be able to play the game but to be able to make the game. The Business Council of Australia has called for this. The start-up sector has called for this. Malcolm Turnbull has called for this. The day after the budget reply, he said: If we want to succeed, and continue to succeed as a prosperous first-world economy … we need to be leaner, faster, more imaginative, more innovative, more technologically sophisticated, and the key tool for that is coding. He is right, and Bill Shorten is right. We need to make it happen. The problem is: Christopher Pyne took it out of the draft curriculum. That is the problem. Government is apparently too hard. We have not got crowdfunding legislation yet. We still do not have coding in the curriculum, even though some people on the other side understand how important this is. It is not happening because government is a bit too hard. Let me go back to the story of Tan Le. I remember her telling me that when she landed in Australia her mum told her to touch the ground because this is a very special place. The little girl bent down and she touched the ground and she looked up and she said to her mum, 'It doesn't feel very special.' Her mum looked back to her and said, 'You've got to make it special with your mind.' That is what the little girl did, and that is what we need to do—to make sure that we build the skills we need for the future. The problem is: this government is not doing it. It is going to take a Bill Shorten led Labor government to get the job done. 15:23 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth If Bill Shorten is the answer, one shudders to think what the question may be. Really, we are being advised by the Labor Party on entrepreneurship, advised by a party that, when it was in government, had not one member of its cabinet—not one—that had ever been in business, no business background at all. The serried ranks of apparatchiks—there they are before us. That is the problem with the Labor Party. It has no understanding of business. I am thrilled that the member for Blaxland has met with Tan Le in Silicon Valley. It is good. It is obviously a new experience for him to go there to Silicon Valley. I have been going there for decades. I have started over a dozen companies myself. And, by the way, so have many of my colleagues, because one of the big differences between our side of politics and Labor's is that we do not theorise about business, large or small; we do not believe that government is the solution to every business problem; we know that it springs from the enterprise and entrepreneurship of millions of Australians. The fundamental problem with the Labor Party, Madam Speaker—and you heard it from the member for Blaxland today—is that Labor believes in its heart, in its DNA, that government knows what is best. We believe government's role is to enable you to do what is best. Tan Le is a very impressive Australian entrepreneur. I have made her acquaintance too. She is quite a star in Silicon Valley, among the many Australian entrepreneurs there. And do you know what she raised with me, Madam Speaker, when I was there sometime ago? She complained to me about the fact that the Labor Party had so wrecked the employee share scheme legislation that start-up companies in Australia could not afford to offer shares or options as incentives to their employees. And she was not alone. The single most common complaint I have had from entrepreneurs in the technology space, talking about the legislative priorities that this parliament should address itself to, is about this fundamental problem. In 2009, in a fit of madness, the Labor government decided that any employee that was given an option or a share by their employer, even if it was in a start-up, where the shares could be worth a lot or—more likely, regrettably, given the success rate of small companies—nothing, would be taxed. Even there, those shares, those bits of paper, would be taxed and they would have to go and borrow the money to pay the taxes. Of course, as usual, what happened? Only the very largest companies could hire the accounting firms and the lawyers, at great expense, to structure their way around it. And what did one small Australian start-up after another do? It moved precisely to where the member for Blaxland was—to Silicon Valley. So I would say to the honourable member: that is an absolute own goal, a complete own goal. As for crowdfunding, yes, it is an important part of the mix and, yes, the government will be presenting legislation on that later in the year. It is, however, very important to get it right, because crowdfunding has to balance the powerful aggregational powers of the internet—being able to get a meaningful amount of money in lots of small bits—with consumer protection. Getting that balance is critically important, so it is worthwhile taking care to ensure that the legislation is drafted correctly. Let us turn now to the question of coding and STEM subjects in schools. I think all honourable members agree that it is a very, very important part of our curriculum, of our educational objectives, to ensure that people—young children, in particular—have experience with coding. As a father of a schoolteacher whose teaches coding at her school, I am aware of the keen interest that young people have in this area. I just want to remind the honourable member that the government is investing $3½ million—as part of $12 million in an Industry, Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda—to support the teaching of STEM subjects. We are focused on promoting STEM subjects in schools and increasing the amount of coding taught in schools. It is very important, of course, that this be done with the cooperation of state education departments. It is also very important that we see more students completing their education with maths or science—and you heard the Minister for Education and Training talking about the importance of that yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition's thought bubble on coding and STEM subjects is quite interesting because, as usual, it is amazingly inconsistent. The backflips he is capable of are truly athletic. If only he were as eloquent as he is flexible, he would make a bigger contribution. In 2008, then Prime Minister Rudd cut the cost of students studying STEM subjects, but this was then reversed in MYEFO 2011-12, with average student contributions for mathematics, statistics and science almost doubling in the cost per unit to about $8,300. They then extended this to existing students studying STEM in the following year's budget, resulting in considerable savings over the forward estimates. This is what the then minister, Senator Evans, said: The reduction in student contributions for mathematics, statistics and science units since 2009 has not been effective in substantially increasing the number of students undertaking maths and science at university. Students are predominantly motivated not by price but by their interests, abilities and career preferences when selecting courses. This is a very, very important point. The best way to get more students studying STEM, to get more people starting companies in Australia, is to ensure that government does not throw up stupid obstacles, such as the Labor Party's legislation on ESOPs; that government makes it easier to start companies; that government has a strong economy that encourages resilience, entrepreneurship and enterprise; and, above all, that government ensures that it does its job of managing the economy as efficiently as possible. A big part of my portfolio and the honourable member's shadow portfolio is of course the National Broadband Network. That was a project—remember this—which was conceived in 77 days. It was started in 77 days. That was all the time that Labor took to embark on a $43 billion project. They had no idea how much it would cost or how long it would take to build. Indeed, just before the election the Labor Party, so unaware of what this project would cost, were saying it was costing only $2,200 to pass and connect premises with fibre. Now that nearly one million premises have been passed across the whole network, we now actually know what it costs. The real figure is $3,600, plus another $700 for the capitalised costs of the Telstra pits and pipes. So the reality is that, on this massive infrastructure project, so important to technology and connectivity, so important to innovation, so important to all the things the honourable member claims to be committed to, the Labor Party was mishandling the investment in an extraordinary manner. In fact, Bill Scales, in his independent audit of this project, said, 'This policy process that set up the NBN, of Labor, in 77 days was rushed, chaotic and inadequate, with only perfunctory consideration by the cabinet.' That is the level of incompetence we have from Labor and the reason why Labor cannot be trusted when it talks about creating jobs and fostering innovation. Labor wants us to believe that a government composed of people with no relevant business experience, with a shocking track record, can somehow or other provide the spark, provide the leadership, to the entrepreneurs of Australia. That is what it promises. Let us never forget that, in those six years, Labor spent $2 in extra spending for every $1 they received in extra revenue. That sums up this chronicle of incompetence and why the honourable member's claims to be in favour of innovation fall absolutely flat. 15:34 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton It was very interesting to hear from the honourable member, the member for Wentworth, but we did not hear at all a plan about the future and the future of jobs in this country. Indeed, when you look at the budget papers and at the lack of investment in research and development, at the cuts to the CSIRO and scientists, at the way in which the government are increasing fees to deprived skilled kids getting into universities, you can see that not only do they not have a plan to actually provide the skills needed for the emerging areas of growth in the Labor market but indeed they are putting impediments in place to stop these skills being there to anticipate the growth in the labour market. These new areas of growth were outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in the budget reply speech last week and, indeed, go to the areas that matter most for our young people. It is true to say that, in the end, business creates jobs but the government has the responsibility to create the environment in which those businesses can thrive. The best way for those businesses to not only survive but thrive is to ensure that there is sufficient investment in research and development, and sufficient investment by a government in skills. The Leader of the Opposition's commitment last week was to ensure that we would focus on the emerging areas that are growing fast in our labour market—new technologies, namely, science, technology, engineering and mathematics. These are the areas that we as a government need to focus on. We would have to do that in government and it is certainly the government's role to do such a thing. But the Minister for Communications did not make any commitments in this regard. It is a lame defence put forward by the Minister for Communications on the lack of a plan by the government for this emerging challenge for the nation. By contrast, the member for Blaxland clearly outlined how we are falling behind other comparable countries. There is no doubt that, when it comes to points of comparison, we are not keeping up with comparable countries. You only have to look at some of the areas where we are inferior. Our venture capital industry is small and not well developed and, in per capita terms, it is about one third the size of the United States's venture capital industry. It is almost a quarter of the size of Canada's. We should be matching pound for pound our investment and indeed our encouragement of venture capital with these two countries, yet we are falling behind. As an OECD nation, we are falling behind in research and development in relation to these areas. When you look at the forecast in the government's own budget figures, it is no wonder that you see an increase in unemployment over time. Is it any wonder you are seeing unemployment rise in the next financial year to 6.5 per cent? Is it any wonder that you are seeing 80,000 more people lining the unemployment queues today than was the case at the last election? The government has no plan to deal with these issues. It has no plan to articulate what is needed. But, of course, we do have a plan. We have a plan to ensure we encourage young people, whether it be in primary school, secondary school or higher education, to take up these areas and that skill acquisition at a very early age, like other countries do, to ensure we can compete with countries in our region. But we will not hold our breath when it comes to this government. It has put things in the way of such skill acquisition by increasing fees as it seeks to do at universities, by depriving investment in primary schools and secondary schools, by ripping away the billions of dollars to those schools. We will see a lack of investment and a lack of capacity of this country to ensure that young people acquire such skills in the emerging areas of the economy and labour market. The government now has a chance and opportunity to attend to this issue. The opposition wants to work with the government on such matters. We have outlined the areas where we would like to go. Indeed, if the government responded positively to the views of the opposition, we could work together on these issues. But we will not hold our breath because, in the end, this government has no regard for people that are looking for jobs and no regard for the future. It only has regard for the Prime Minister's own job. 15:39 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson It is my pleasure to speak on today's MPI. Jobs certainly are a key focus of this government. It is an issue that has certainly been at the front of my mind as I have done work, particularly in recent months, in the area of STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths. Everyone that I have spoken to has certainly acknowledged that a lot more needs to be done to improve the STEM skills of our nation. We must turn our minds to some practical and some real solutions to what is a very complex problem. While the solutions appear to lie primarily with education, it is industry that wears the outcomes of education. I think that there are some things we need to do before we race headlong into coming up with some purported solutions to this. We need to understand the problem. And, as I have already said, it is a complex problem. Let me start by talking about the jobs of the future. Anyone who says that they can predict what the jobs of the future are going to be are actually kidding themselves. But there are some key indicators of what the skills will be for the jobs of the future. Those skills include the ability to analyse data. We are amassing enormous amounts of data. We will need people in the future who understand how to analyse data. We will need people with strong statistical analysis skills. We will also need people who have skills in the area of computer coding. If we further start to define the problem, we know that the issues are faced by those in years 5 to 8. Our target age group are the 10-year-olds to the 14-year-olds. There is, however, a strong argument that we should be engaging much earlier. There has already been reference to programs that are being run in kindergartens overseas. Germany is certainly an example of where science is being introduced into kindergartens. Those programs are already being rolled out in Australia. In Sydney alone, there are over 40 centres that are currently introducing science into kindergarten. But we know there is an issue we need to address—that is, the impact of the influencers of our students. We need to impact on the teachers. We need to make sure that we have good quality teachers with strong science and maths skills themselves, and with the confidence to go out there and work with the students and engage with them. We need to ensure that they are making science and maths, in particular, fun and interesting. We know that we have to engage with the parents because parents are key influencers of their children. We need to make sure that parents are engaged in building STEM futures for their children. We need to look at career advisers and engage with them so that they understand that the jobs of the future exist out there in the science, technology, engineering and maths areas. Of course, the fourth component is to make sure that we are engaging with the principals. There seems to be this incredible and almighty push to actually obtain the best possible OP or ATAR score. Often that is done to the detriment of the students who potentially could engage and undertake work in science, engineering, maths and technology at schools. So we have to influence the principals to make sure they are guiding their teachers, career advisers and students appropriately for what the jobs of the future are going to be. The problem is certainly complex, and there is not just one magical fix for this. There is not just one solution to this. I think it is incumbent on all of us here to be aware of the complexities of the issues and to be a little bit conscious of making sure that this is an issue that we should not dismiss or make light of. We should actually listen to the views that are being put in this place and have a sensible debate about the way forward. We need to understand that it is going to take a minimum of 10 years to influence the 10-year-olds in school now; to get them through their science subjects and out into the workforce. This is a long-term process, but it is certainly one in which the work has already been started by this government. We intend to continue, and I am committed to making sure that we improve STEM skills in Australia. 15:44 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley If a country could open up nearly half a million new jobs through one sector alone, you would think that you would seize that opportunity and try and generate that job growth. If that sector could contribute four per cent of GDP, over $100 billion—and that is up 0.4 per cent from what it is doing now—you would think it would be supported, especially in a climate where the jobs and the income being generated by one sector in particular, mining, are disappearing or shrinking before our eyes, and there is urgency: how do we actually generate new jobs and regear the economy to make sure that the next generation of Australians coming through will have jobs? Yet we do not have any sense of a national mission to regear the economy and prepare it for the jobs that are around the corner. You would think that we would accept the need for that, you would think that we would prepare for it, but that is not what we see at all. We see the numbers and the types of jobs diminishing. To respond to the parliamentary secretary, who said, 'We don't know the shape of those jobs in the future': we actually do. The sector that is thinking about this, the tech sector, is desperate to see government think about it, and it released a report last month. StartupAUS, which is made up of entrepreneurs who are focused on this space, are saying that they are frustrated by a government that is not listening to them and not responding. They have all the jobs there. They can see what is needed to create those jobs and, importantly, get people ready for those jobs—and there are people ready to back that up. For example, when I visited Melbourne last week, I saw a group that has been around since 2010, Sonoa Health, that is creating scores of jobs there related to tapping into the amazing amount of information that exists in the healthcare space to be able to tailor it to individuals. They are doing it right now. They have people like John Stewart, who turned his back on a lucrative career in investment banking and has said he is prepared to put his own money into this enterprise and to do it right now. When you see the jobs that are being created, you realise the truism that exists in this sector—that is, for every one job that is created in the tech sector, five more are created elsewhere. For example, in the US, the tech sector has a jobs multiplier, a phenomenal jobs multiplier: 25 times more jobs are created in the tech sector than in any other. So what is being done to support that? You have to focus on what you can do to boost talent and what you can do to boost capital. This budget did nothing in that regard. It took Bill Shorten to actually say, 'If we've got these skills shortages, what will we do to invest in skills; what will be done to support people?' So, what we want to do is invest in STEM skills—and this is where the coding element is important, as referred to by the shadow minister and, in particular, the opposition leader—to get young people thinking early about what they can do by introducing coding in schools. What did the coalition do? They took it out of the national curriculum. They talk about the importance of coding, through their communications minister, but their education minister stops those skills being acquired. We talk about opening up new avenues for capital. We were the ones who put forward a $500 million fund to be able to co-invest and support the capital needs of start-ups in this country—nothing like that from those opposite. New avenues are opening up for capital through crowd-funding, yet those opposite sat on an independent report that gives a road map to providing crowd-sourced equity funding. There is nothing there. We have a combination, for example, of 20,000 Australians working right now in Silicon Valley. They are there because there is not enough opportunity here and there is not enough capital being circulated here, and those are the things that we do need to focus on to build the skills and the jobs of the future. For those opposite who think it might be too hard, it is worth bearing this in mind: Silicon Alley, New York, has in 2015, for the first time, edged out California in the total number of start-up funding applications that have been generated. They are doing better in New York now than in Silicon Valley. Why? Because the state of New York and the city of New York have focused on this area. Where manufacturing is changing there and not generating jobs—similar to the types of challenges we have—they have backed up the tech sector and they have seen companies grow and they have seen economic activity flourish. It can be done if you are committed to doing it. The issue is: is this government prepared and committed to supporting these future jobs for the next generation of Australians? The answer is no. (Time expired) 15:49 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie I am pleased that those opposite agree that it is important to plan for jobs for the future. That is one thing that we do agree on; how we get there is something we may disagree on. This government understands that the best planning you can do for jobs is to plan to deliver a strong economy—an environment in which business can prosper and, indeed, want to invest. In the electorate of Macquarie, there are some 11,000 businesses. All contribute to jobs, and that is why, in the 2015-16 budget, we have planned to deliver so many measures to strengthen and grow small businesses. Small businesses provide some 4.5 million Australians with their jobs. They provide four in 10 jobs in the private sector, six in 10 jobs in the construction sector and eight in 10 jobs in the agriculture sector. Additionally, we are reducing the costs for small businesses to employ job seekers, through initiatives such as wage subsidies, and by assisting job seekers gain valuable work experience by providing $18 million over four years. Whilst this government recognises the challenges that young people are facing in jobs in an ever-changing world, wage subsidies will also be available to the mature-age worker through the Restart initiative. The 2015-16 budget invests in education from preschool to postgraduate studies as part of the government's commitment to increasing opportunity, improving and safeguarding quality and excellence in education and ultimately improving job prospects. Total Commonwealth funding for schools across Australia will increase by $4.1 billion, a 27.9 per cent increase from 2014-15 through to 2018-19. Members opposite have mentioned skills and training. There will be significant reform, including better governance, the introduction of a unique student identifier, a new model for supporting Australian apprentices and their employers, a contestable model for training packages and a review of the systems training products. There are also several major initiatives underway, with trade support loans for apprentices and the $664 million over five years for the Industry Skills Fund, supporting businesses to ensure that their staff have the skills required to make their businesses grow in the 21st century. Along with this, young employed people will receive skills linked to real jobs and support to re-engage with work, training or school through the government's two youth training pilots, which I have mentioned in this place before and which are being trialled in 32 sites across Australia, including the seat of Macquarie. Under the Training for Employment scholarships, there will be around 7,500 scholarships. This is 7,500 young people who will receive up to $7,500 to assist employers to take on and train unemployed young people. The Youth Employment Pathways program offers up to $2,000 in assistance to eligible community service organisations to help disengaged 15- to 18-year-olds to get back into school, start VET or move into the workforce. These are programs that are already on the ground, impacting young people and creating opportunities for them to step into the work space. Today we are talking about the future. Recently, the Minister for Education reflected on some comments by the Leader of the Opposition and said that the Australian government is investing $3.5 million to ensure that all students have the opportunity to study computer coding at both primary school and high school. The minister went on to say that the investment is part of the $12 million Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda to support the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The future is largely unknown. We know that, in the fast-growing technological age in which we live and work, our young people will have ever-shifting and very fast-growing demands placed upon them. It is important to set them up for success into the future. 15:54 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Today, like many of these dark days of the Abbott government, I sat through question time and I despaired for Australia; I sat back in my seat and despaired for Australia. Government members interjecting— Ms O'NEIL 140590 It was not because of the sad and relentless negativity, a good example of which are the interjections here; it was not even because of the appalling small-mindedness that we continue to see from this government; it was because of the total lack of vision that we saw on the other side of the chamber. That is what this government delivers up day after day after day. This really worries me because this is a time when we really need vision. When we think about whether we are prepared for the economy of the future—the important policy debate that the government is so enthusiastically trying to participate in—we see a few things that we probably should be concerned about. I will talk about some of these issues. One of them is our engagement with Asia. All Australians out there on the street can tell you that Asia is going to be important to Australia's future, but I think that probably not many of them know that only nine per cent of Australian businesses are actually doing business in Asia today. Another indicator that worries me is that, over the last decade in Australia, we have seen stagnation in the improvements to our year 12 retention rate, and yet a lot of the countries we are competing with are seeing improvements there. Even when we look more broadly at the performance of our education system, we see real causes for concern. Australia's education system is declining in performance year after year, and the countries that we have previously thought of as countries that we would be giving the great ideas to are now outperforming us. China, for example, is right up there at the top of the league tables. Jobs of the Future fits into this important discussion about where we as a country are going. I have spoken a little bit in the parliament today about some of the reasons why we might be really optimistic about the future opportunities for Australia. It is true that Australia has a really important history of innovation. Australian scientists are incredible people. They invented spray-on skin. They invented the black box. The CSIRO was integral to the invention of wi-fi. All these things give me cause to think really positively about the future. But I think the seismic shift in the way our economy functions had not been really well discussed in this parliament until the Leader of the Opposition gave his Budget reply speech a few days ago. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the fact that, in about two decades, about 47 per cent of the jobs that exist in our economy today will be gone. That is enormous change—certainly change that we have not seen in the last 20 years in Australia. As the economy changes, we are seeing low- and middle-skill jobs disappear and more and more high-skill jobs being created. The Leader of the Opposition made the important point that 75 per cent of the fastest-growing job categories are in these stem professions. When we look at whether our economy is prepared for this future that is available to it, we also see a lot of causes for concern—75 per cent of the jobs that are growing are in stem professions. Yet, as our shadow minister for communications foreshadowed, the number of ICT graduates Australia is producing is actually declining. We want to debate these issues, we want to have this discussion, yet what we see from the government is guffawing and laughing and a relentless focus on the politics of the day to day. I think it is very sad. I want to talk about some of the things Labor wants to do in response to these really important changes that are going to affect the lives of all Australians over the next 50 years so. One of the ideas that the Leader of the Opposition talked about in his Budget reply speech is the Smart Investment Fund. This is a really important idea—half a billion dollars that Labor wants to see put into this important start up community. Seek.com, for example, started with a $2.5 million grant from government and it is now a $5 billion organisation. We can see government playing a really important role here. We have talked a little bit in this debate about coding, so I will not cover that ground again. But I just want to say that the third and final component of this was around stem education. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about some really important ways that we can increase participation in stem education, especially the participation of women. Labor is the only political party in Australia talking about this. I am really proud of that and I just wish that the government would step up and show some leadership on these subjects. 15:59 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Planning for jobs of the future—if you were not laughing, you would be crying about what you hear from the other side. This is a political party full of unionists, full of political staffers and lawyers who have never—if you asked how many on that side have put up their own money or have employed people if not from their own money then from their ideas, it would probably be a big, fat zero. Opposition members interjecting— Mr HOGAN 218019 You hear that because the answers to this are government. The answer to more jobs in the future is government. I can tell you right now there is more money. There is venture capital money. There is money to be invested in this country, and they are looking for people with ideas. They are looking for people who have opportunities and know what they want to do, and they are not looking at government. It is like the show The Shark Tank. 'Don't come to me; go to the government. Go and get co-investment from them. That's a good idea.' That is how they think. So what should we do as a government? Obviously, government plays a role. It is not in the sad ideas from the other side coming, as you might expect, from people who have never invested their own money in other people's jobs or had an idea that has employed other people. The important things we are doing as a government are the important things that are important to small businesses, as many people on this side keep saying because they have been in small business and employed people in small business, employing people from their own ideas, employing people from their own money. What is this government doing to plan for jobs of the future? There are many things. I only have three minutes left and could probably go for three hours talking about the things this government has done to plan for the future. One—and they think it is just a bit of a sideshow—is whenever we have the red tape repeal days. It is not a sideshow; it is essential to the viability and the productivity of many small businesses, because what can they do when they do not have as much red tape? They employ more people doing productive things. What else have we done as a government? Obviously, we have just introduced probably the best budget for small business this country has seen in decades. What do tax cuts do for business? They give them more opportunity to employ more people. The tax write-off has been spoken about. If there is one thing I think we have wrong in the budget—and I am happy to admit it—it is that I think the take-up of this $20,000 tax write-off will be bigger than we think. And you know what? That is a good thing because that is small business people out there employing with their own ideas and encouraging job growth in this country. What else have we done? Obviously, we have the free trade agreements. Let's not forget those. The free trade agreements are increasing jobs in my community as we speak. As we know, we have to be a competitive country because we are into exports and we are an open economy looking for export markets. Honourable members interjecting— Mr HOGAN 218019 It's very competitive to speak in here! And the free trade agreements are helping businesses big and small in my community to employ more people because they have more markets, they are selling more products and that has been good for job growth in this country. The other side could not close it off. The other speaker earlier mentioned the employee share schemes. Gee, that was a brilliant idea from an ex-political staffer. Let's tax people before they can realise the money from an employee share scheme. Whoever's brain dead idea that was: that worked! I might have to skip a few pages here. I can go for three hours but had three minutes. Again, what I get and what is, unfortunately, reinforced whenever we have debates like this in this House is that the other side always thinks the government is a genius. Government knows what to do. We should be co-investing, we should be doing this and we should be doing that. Like everything, the answer to most things is not in this chamber. The answer is not us investing in small business. The answer, as always, is for us to get out of the way, is for us to encourage the men and women of Australia who have great ideas, great opportunities and are putting their capital and their ideas on the line. We are here to support them by getting out of the way. 16:04 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Earlier this year I hosted a dozen MPs from all sides of politics in a session with Code Club Australia, a nationwide not-for-profit group that is teaching our children the language of the 21st century: coding. For an hour before question time the pollies hunched over their laptops, ready to learn the basics of how to give instructions to a computer. Watching these pollies at the time reminded me of the classroom of coders in Altona Primary School in my electorate. They also have a code club teaching exactly the same thing. What they were learning was not just a new language; it was a new way of thinking, a new way of solving problems and a new skill set for the future. I tell you: if MPs can learn this in half an hour, every 10-year-old in the country can do so too— Mr Pasin interjecting— Mr WATTS 193430 other than the member for Barker, possibly! The problem is that, at the moment, not enough Australian kids are getting the chance to learn this new way of thinking in our schools. Code Club Australia was founded by Annie Parker because of a problem that she was continually confronting in her day job as the co-founder of muru-D, Telstra's start-up accelerator. There were simply not enough Australians leaving our schools and universities with skills in coding and computational thinking, so she set up a not-for-profit designed to fix a problem that this government is refusing to address. This skills void is a real problem for Australian businesses and Australians in general, who are being set up to miss out on the opportunities of the jobs of the future. Digitalisation and connectivity mean that even today every company, no matter what the industry, must be a software company. As many have noted, software is eating the world, and understanding the basics of how to solve problems in this new world is crucial for everyone in the workforce even if they never write a line of code themselves. The rest of the world is already getting this message. Over 12 European countries already have coding as part of their school curriculum, with another seven countries including Singapore and New Zealand in the process of implementing it. To thrive in the modern economy, Australians need more than just to be passive users of technology; they need to understand how to use technology to innovate. People in the IT sector—the sector that I worked in before coming to this place—describe the difference as being the difference between being able to ride a tricycle and ride a bicycle: anyone can ride a tricycle within seconds of seeing one, but it is those who learn the extra skills necessary to ride a bike who can get to more places. In Australia, unfortunately, we are leaving the bike in the shed. This year the Harvard Business Review ranked Australia's digital capacity as 'stalling out'. Only 32 per cent of Australian students have the opportunity of learning to code in school as either a curriculum subject or an extracurricular activity. We are also falling behind in science, technology, engineering and mathematics—the STEM skills. From 1991 to 2007, the percentage of Australian students studying chemistry fell from 23.3 per cent to 18 per cent and physics fell from 20.9 per cent to 14.6 per cent. The numbers of students studying tertiary ICT courses have plummeted, falling by 52 per cent in the decade from 2003 to 2013. The percentage of students in tertiary mathematics degrees in Australia is just 0.5 per cent, less than half of the OECD average. Seventy-five per cent of the fastest growing jobs in Australia require STEM skills. We have to start making choices about the future of work in Australia, and we cannot ignore the writing on the wall that is telling us that at the moment we need a new approach to take full advantage of the skills of the future. That is where Bill Shorten and Labor have articulated a clear plan and a vision for the future. It is not just a luxury for those who can afford it as private extracurricular tutoring; Labor are committed to ensuring that coding is taught in both primary and secondary schools across the country. We are also committed to upskilling primary and secondary school teachers and writing off the HECS debts of 100,000 STEM university graduates. That is right—not creating $100,000 degrees but rather 100,000 STEM graduates. This stands in stark contrast to the Abbott government's attitude to the teaching of STEM in our schools and universities. It explicitly stated that ICT studies do not need to be taught in primary school and only need to be studied as an elective in secondary school. That was the Minister for Education and Training's brilliance in appointing Kevin Donnelly to run an inquiry about the skills that our nation will need in the future. The reality is that if we are only allowing kids to learn coding in secondary school we have already missed the boat. David Cameron gets this. The Estonian government gets this. Why don't the Prime Minister and the minister for education? If we are serious about taking advantage of the digital revolution and preparing for the jobs of the future, we must act now. The lead times are long. In his budget reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition said: A budget should match the priorities of the nation. Preparing Australia for the jobs of the future must be a national priority for all of us in this place. The complete absence of any discussion of the future of our nation in the government's budget speech is a gaping hole in the middle of the government's economic agenda and it is one that the opposition are ready to fill when we come to government. 16:09 Mr VARVARIS 250077 Barton I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance today, and I thank the member for Blaxland for creating the chance for all of us to have a conducive and robust discussion on planning for jobs for current and future generations of Australians. Australia is a generous and prosperous nation that provides equal access to opportunity for all people. Opportunities such as access to quality primary and secondary education and tertiary qualifications all enable individuals to obtain a job in the future. We believe in rewarding based on effort. We believe that equipping a person with the skills they need should be the basis what we as parliamentarians and law makers do. We want to facilitate and enable the right conditions in which people are afforded the opportunity to seek learning and training so that they are job-ready now and into the future. All jobs are valuable to our national economy and, more so, to a person's sense of identity and esteem. However, in order for all Australians to be able to find work, years of planning and coordination is required from all levels of government. We need to have the right framework in place so that our teachers can provide the essential skills necessary for young people from early education to higher education. We must also enable opportunities outside of the traditional classroom for students to further develop their knowledge and life experience to transition from learning in a classroom to the workplace. Regulation and legislation that we enact must be able to reflect the needs of the marketplace, employers, workers and students. I note that many of those on the coalition side actively lobby for incentives for job creation so that more local jobs can be created and, for those who live outside of the CBD, to minimise travelling time. We are living in times of intense competition and global mobility, but this also means we are living in times with more opportunities and, as such, we need to expand our horizons and have the ability to forecast and plan for jobs of the future. We are a government that have the best interests of small business at heart, businesses which employ local people. Small businesses are the engine room of the economy and provide the bulk of employment opportunities. It is their innovative and entrepreneurial spirit which ensures the viability of our nation's economy. By ensuring that small businesses continue to have the jobs of the future, our Jobs and Small Business package will help small businesses invest and grow. We will reduce the red tape and bureaucracy that stifle so many opportunities for businesses. We want to encourage our entrepreneurs to continue to take risks and be rewarded, not punished. After all, governments do not create jobs; businesses do. In addition, we are planning and investing in the right infrastructure around this country to ensure that business can have their goods delivered, that customers and employees can cut travel time and that there is increased productivity all around because roads are not clogged with drivers—that is, employers and employees trying to get from A to B. Our close ties with regional neighbours, particularly our trading partners in Asia, such as China, Korea and Japan, further stipulate the need for jobs to be aligned with learning and training programs in place so students have the opportunity to obtain the jobs of their dreams. To ensure we remain a smart nation, our students must be able to learn from the best and have the opportunity to reach out to the world. This side of the House are firmly committed in our plans to building a strong, safe and prosperous future for all Australians. This side of the House are systematically delivering opportunities at all stages of a child's life—in preschools, primary schools and secondary schools, as well as in tertiary institutions and training colleges—that provide the needed skills of prospective employees. The coalition is delivering the opportunities to address the importance of planning for the jobs of the future. For example, from 2016, Commonwealth funding will be informed by the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability so that all students with disability are funded in the same manner, regardless of the state or territory they live in. Students with a disability will receive the extra support they need, with a record $1.3 billion being provided in 2015-16. For those in our vocational system, the coalition will deliver a strong system that is sustainable and world-class, including cracking down on colleges that do not provide quality training. We will ensure that quality and equity is at the forefront of our higher education system so that quality is never diluted and graduates are equipped with the knowledge and skills needed for their future employment. We are the party that will ensure our schools produce bright pupils and that the best and brightest of teachers are attracted to teach them. It is the coalition that understand the importance of planning for the jobs of the future. BILLS 42 BILLS National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015 42

National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015

Second Reading 42 16:14 Dr STONE EM6 Murray The National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015 is, as far as I am concerned, a no-brainer. We are not going to abolish all the functions that the commission once had. We are simply sending them across to other agencies, like the Productivity Commission, the Bureau of Meteorology and ABARES. We are saying that what it used to do was important but we do not need to have a stand-alone entity to undertake the monitoring of Australia's progress on water reform. So I think it is a good move. If it saves us $21 million over the forward estimates, that is a good thing. If it saves us a few extra bits of regulation, red tape, that is to be applauded. I therefore want to move beyond this contest about whether or not we should have abolished the National Water Commission to talk about the significance of water itself: why we didn't simply put an axe through this agency and walk away; why we in fact retasked other important agencies to do the work. Before getting to that point, I want to correct a few things that a previous speaker, the member for Bendigo, said. I know she is new to Bendigo. She is my neighbour in the electorate next door. I am very pleased that she is now engaging with this water issue. She has been north beyond Bendigo and has visited my irrigators. I applaud her for doing that. She quoted Kagomi as saying that their biggest problem was the management of water in the system and therefore they want to keep the National Water Commission. No. I have to make that clear. Kagomi's report—which I too have a copy of, and I have spoken at length to their MD—makes the point that they no longer have enough access to water in the Goulburn-Murray Water's system, which is part of the Murray-Darling Basin. Their access is now very much restricted, given half of the water has been removed from the irrigation system. The price of the water in the temporary market is often beyond what their tomato growers can pay. That is the No. 1 issue for this company, which is in fact one of the biggest tomato manufacturers in Australia. We are so pleased it is based in Echuca, employing great people and, even better, growing some of the best manufacturing tomatoes in the world. I have to say, too, that the member for Bendigo kept stressing that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is all about the environment, that the No. 1 thing is the environment. No; in fact, it is not. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the Water Act stresses that the plan is a triple bottom line effort. It is the environment, the community and the economy. If you do not get the economy or the community right, for example, if you destroy the livelihood of the farmers, who are the backbone of the basin economy, and you drive them off to the point where they cannot produce food and fibre, they cannot do the job of managing the environment, which is what good farmers have to do to stay sustainable. So, no; it is a triple bottom line approach, which is enshrined in the Water Act itself and which has been repeated again and again as the objective of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We have to make sure that it is always remembered because it is an integrated triple bottom line. You cannot have one element without the other. We all love the environment and we depend on it—the soil, the water, the biodiversity and the air quality. It has to be a triple bottom line approach, or we all go out backwards. Water is the life blood of northern Victoria. The Deputy Speaker himself, member for McEwen, knows that. His own electorate is dependent on water. The economy of most of my electorate is within the Goulburn-Murray irrigation area. That is why the density of my population is as it is. It is not like Jerilderie or the dry parts of Dubbo; it is a closely settled area. We would not have had all the food production, manufacturing and abattoirs built in most of our small towns unless we had this water supply. The Goulburn-Murray water irrigation system covers an area bigger than Tasmania. Without this huge irrigation and water supply system, we would not have, as we have, Australia's biggest registration of heavy transports—that is in Shepparton—outside any capital city. We would not have some of the biggest stock feed producers or, in fact, the biggest dairy farms, biggest orchards, biggest tomato growers, biggest piggeries, biggest mushroom farms, biggest olive groves, biggest poultry farms, the best independent wineries and the biggest workforces in food manufacturing in regional Australia. All of those are the case in my electorate of Murray and they are all dependent on a secure irrigation system, which is called Goulburn-Murray. We thought this massive gravity-run irrigation system had drought proofed us—and it did for a century, for 100 years. But the Millennium Drought saw Eildon, Eppalock, Dartmouth and Hume dams that supplied this system fail. It failed to a point where, for example, at the height of the drought, the Campaspe irrigators agreed to close down their irrigation system permanently. They sold their 6,409 high-reliability megalitres of water to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. They now try and survive on a stock and domestic supply only. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is now the largest owner of water entitlement in Australia. It has 2,275 gigalitres of water, which is equivalent to 4½ times the volume of Sydney Harbour. All of this water was previously used for food and fibre production in the Murray-Darling Basin—every drop. About one quarter of this water, or 554 gigalitres of high security water, was taken from the entitlements of my Goulburn-Murray water system farms. You might ask: 'Why on earth did they do that?' The trouble is that they were at the height of the worst drought on record. Can you imagine the cruelty of an official act that said to farmers suffering from the worst drought on record, where farmers' debts to their lenders had doubled: 'I will offer you, as the minister for the environment, Senator Penny Wong, $2,400 or so per megalitre for your high security water and your banks will be pleased'—and they were. They stood on the necks of those irrigators and half of the water of my Goulburn-Murray water irrigation system was sold during that period to the Environmental Water Holder. Before the drought we had 1,900 gigalitres. Five years later, in the middle of the drought, we were down to 1,600 gigalitres. Today we are down to 900 gigalitres. I want to remind you that for every 100 megalitres we have one job—that 100 megalitres supports one job—and there are 1,000 megalitres in a gigalitre. So do your maths. You can see the social and economic impact of this huge loss of water access for my region's food producers. Tonight SBS TV is going to feature the 25 per cent youth unemployment in the city of Greater Shepparton. I am hoping they will be kind to us, because we cannot help it. We have lost so many jobs. I guess you can imagine how devastated I was at, again, the official cruelty of the South Australian government that moved into my patch—my irrigators market—and offered up to about $2,500 per megalitre. They had, we understand, about $16 million to spend and they wanted eight gigalitres of high security water off my irrigators. Why? For their urban water users in South Australia. They have mothballed their $320 million desal plant in South Australia—and the money for that came from the federal government, of course. They have realised it is cheaper to raid the irrigators market at $2,500 a megalitre than to try and crank up reuse systems or harvest stormwater in Adelaide, Port Augusta and all those towns and cities outside the Murray-Darling Basin that have our precious food production water piped across the plains. In fact, the South Australian government's tender closed on Wednesday last week. The traders went from farm to farm and said: 'Come on—this might be your last chance to sell your water. You know you are in trouble financially; your dairy prices are not all that good, mate; you still owe money.' I am horrified and distressed to say that water was sold. When you sell your water permanently to someone like the South Australian government to flush down the toilets in the city, to wash the concrete, to save the government enforcing water restrictions or conservation practices on your populations in the cities, then you have farmers who become dependent on a temporary water market. That temporary water market price was at about $50 about three years ago; last year it was about $70; this year it is up to $135; and two days ago water traders were saying it was $150. A dairy farmer can only pay about $90 maximum to make money off that one megalitre of water. Do your sums again, everybody, and work out how many of my dairy farmers—half of whom are now totally dependent on temporary water because their permanent water is gone—are going to survive. They are meant to be part of the 'dining boom' that is going to take over from the mining boom. Oh fantastic! The only problem is that their main means of production, their water, has been sold away. It is so ironic that, while the South Australian government was raiding my irrigators market for what for them was cheap high security water, we here in parliament were working out how to get a cap introduced on any further buyback of irrigators' water through legislation—a cap of 1,500 gigalitres on any further buybacks. We have already found most of that water, but we are so aware now in this parliament, at least on this side, that further buybacks off irrigators are so ruinous to the Murray-Darling Basin economy that we want to cap any further buyback. Meanwhile we have the South Australian government in our irrigators market going as hard as they can to buy what is left of our high security water. I find that unconscionable, I find it immoral, and I have to say to the South Australian government: look to your own urban water conservation policies; stay away from food and fibre production water—buying that back is not right. When we have the next drought, it is going to be an extremely tragic situation. It will also be a bit sad for the urban water users of South Australia, because the water they bought will also be subject to the drought restrictions that will be part of the Eildon, Hume and Dartmouth dam allocations. That is what we have had happening in our part of the world. In the teeth of the drought in 2006 there were 2,721 dairy farms in Murray—we are down now to just 1,100. The numbers have halved. But we are a magnificent area, as I said—we have still got the biggest and best of everything; all we need is a fair go. We are not getting a fair go from the federal government at the moment and will not until we have that 1,500 gigalitre cap put on further buybacks. I beg the opposition to join us in supporting that. At the moment the Environmental Water Holder's regulations require that when it trades water it spends every cent it earns from that trade on further water buyback. We have got to support the independent Australian Water Act review recommendations and say, 'In the future, when the Environmental Water Holder trades its water it must spend every cent of that trade on environmental works and measures investment—not on further buyback.' We have agreed that more buyback kills the economy and communities in the basin—and we are supposed to be pursuing a triple bottom line outcome. If you kill your farmers, you kill your environment. You have got to have the triple bottom line balanced. So we have to have the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's regulations changed, as recommended by the independent report, so that they spend their traded outcomes—their financial gain from that trade—not on water buyback but on environmental works and measures. That would be a good thing for the environment; it would help with those regulators in the Barmah Forest or on Pental Island or the Menindee Lakes. It would be a good thing. I ask that the opposition support that piece of legislation. It is a small change, but an important change. In Victoria we also have to address the horrific malpractices of Goulburn-Murray Water, the Victorian state-owned monopoly now employing over 800 full-time public servants who are mismanaging that great irrigation system. In their most recent three-year EBA they have given their huge workforce a pay rise of three per cent each year; it was a four per cent rise per year over the life of the last EBA. Imagine if their customers could get that level of increase in their farm earnings—but they cannot. They cannot pay the water prices that Murray-Goulburn Water is putting on them but, worst of all, they cannot stand by and watch Goulburn-Murray Water halve the irrigation system by deliberately taking water away from the spurs, the supply channels, leaving it only in the mains. This is part of the so-called foodbowl modernisation plan. I beg the Victorian government to have a royal commission into the mismanagement of Goulburn-Murray Water. The Ombudsman's report into the Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project—NVIRP—found it so badly managed that it was abolished. We have to have Goulburn-Murray Water similarly investigated. Nothing less will do, because it is itself killing the enterprise in this great irrigation system. If that does inquiry not happen, I will be deeply concerned about our future. 16:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler In the early part of this century Australia suffered a severe drought that was particularly intense in its effect on the Murray-Darling Basin. At its worst, the drought resulted in this great river system becoming dysfunctional. The wetlands of the Coorong at the Murray River mouth virtually dried out. The river mouth had to be dredged to accommodate the trickle that reached that part of the system, because upstream states had failed to properly limit allocations to irrigators in a manner commensurate with the effects of the drought. I, as the shadow minister for water, went to South Australia, down to the Coorong, and witnessed the dredging taking place. It was an extraordinary sight—that you needed to dredge at that point each and every day simply to keep the great Murray-Darling system open to the sea. It was an extraordinary circumstance, but it was one to which the then government, the Howard government, responded. Droughts are a fact of life in Australia, but the real problem recognised at that time, by all sides of politics, was that there was a need for a basin-wide approach to manage the River Darling. You see, our great river systems did not recognise colonisation or the great state of New South Wales, or Queensland, South Australia or Victoria. Of course the rivers did not recognise that. But the way the system was managed failed to recognise that what occurred in any place in the basin impacted the rest of the basin, which is why you needed to have a comprehensive approach. The parliament at the time decided that cooperation was needed between Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia. Cooperation was needed in times of drought, but, importantly, cooperation was also needed in times of plenty so that you did not assume that the times of plenty were never-ending, so that you took account of the changes that occurred in the normal weather cycle and also so that you recognised that there was a need to manage and to mitigate the impact of climate change. That was something that was recognised by people on the land, by the bureaucracy and by people in the cities and towns that depended upon the Murray-Darling Basin system for access to that most fundamental of human needs: water—the basis indeed for ongoing life itself, whether human life or growing through agriculture or through farmlands with cattle, sheep and other activity that is so necessary for providing food for our nation and indeed potentially for the world. If you did not have a structure for that cooperation, then each state government, under pressure from industry, would face a great temptation to act in its individual interests rather than in the interests of the entire basin. And of course if that action took place on the basis of sectional interests, then in the long run that would be counterproductive even to the interests that achieved a short-term gain, because the system would not be managed properly to the benefit of the entire system. To its credit, the Howard government worked through the Council of Australian Governments to broker agreements for a more sensible approach to managing the system. It was never a case of choosing between irrigators and the environment. It was understood that, without sustainable management of the resource, the resource would become degraded. It was also accepted that it was important to ensure that there was enough water in the Murray-Darling system to sustain wildlife. Protecting the environment would protect its value as a tourism resource. A new, cooperative approach, the National Water Initiative, was designed to guarantee greater interstate cooperation in the national interest. Part of the new apparatus of this approach was the creation in 2004 of the National Water Commission. Its remit was to achieve a nationally compatible market, regulatory and planning system that would manage water for urban and rural use and optimise economic, social and environmental outcomes. One of the commission's roles was to audit states regarding the way they adhered to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which was delivered by the former Labor government. Independent experts supported this reform process. They realised that it was in the national interest to take the management of water out of the combative arena of interstate rivalry and into the world of evidence based management. Yet today we are being asked, through this legislation, to abolish this organisation—the very organisation that was welcomed by organisations such as the National Farmers' Federation, by experts in scientific research and by communities in the basin and was the subject of unanimous agreement. As the shadow minister for water I had the great privilege of undertaking visits to places like Griffith, Leeton, St George and other places in the basin to look firsthand, as a guest of the NFF, at what irrigators were doing in investing to make their land more productive, and what environmental sustainability measures were being put in place. It was great privilege, as someone who is from very much an urban seat, to be educated by people on the land. What I saw was people doing their bit for their particular properties, but also saw people who understood that there was a need for greater perspective. That is precisely what the National Water Commission was designed to do. The bill before us proposes handing responsibility for the triennial assessment of progress and implementation of the National Water Initiative and the five-yearly audits of implementation of the Basin Plan to the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission is simply not equipped for that task. It lacks the expertise. The idea that the Productivity Commission would take the place of the National Water Commission is simply not appropriate. These issues are complex. The Productivity Commission's processes do not normally include the level of consultation with stakeholders required in such a contentious area. Proper management of this nation's water resources is about economic productivity—there is no question about that—but it is also about the environment and sustainability. It is about much more than a narrow approach which the Productivity Commission, in its wisdom, is designed to facilitate. I believe very clearly that it is worth the $20 million a year that we spend on the National Water Commission. If you consider the environmental degradation that can came from not taking a basin-wide approach, that $20 million is money well spent. Have a look at how much it costs us every time there is a drought or an issue in which farmers need special assistance—much more than $20 million; much, much more every single time. If we get the management of the basin right, the future costs at times of drought or at times of oversupply, in terms of flood, will be less because you will have management that is appropriate and right across the basin. The government's view is very much ideological. It comes from the Commission of Audit, put in place after its election to justify a slash-and-burn approach to public administration. Given that the commission recommended cuts to health and education spending and reductions in the pension and the minimum wage, I doubt the recommendation to abolish the National Water Commission was considered from any angle other than how much money it would save. I doubt also whether the commission considered the fact that a $20 million saving could lead to a much greater cost to government in the future as a result of not making sure that we maximise the appropriate management of the system. This bill is opposed by all of the experts. The inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee into the bill found little support outside the irrigation sector. I take more notice of the National Farmers Federation, which opposed the abolition of the commission. I listened carefully to the experts at the NFF when I was the shadow minister for water. I found the NFF took a balanced approach, understanding the importance of sustainable management. During that period, I got across what is a very complex issue, which is why I think the area of expertise is so important. The Water Services Association of Australia and the Australian Water Association oppose this bill on the basis that it would remove national leadership on water. The Australian Conservation Council also opposes the bill, attacking it as a short-sighted and backward step in the absence of an enhancement of the Productivity Commission's operation and mandate. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, which sets the standard for scientific rigour on water management, said in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry that the National Water Commission was central to guiding implementation of the 2004 reforms. The submission warned: There are a number of signs that indicate we are departing from the strong leadership of the last decade … It appears that our Australian governments are walking away from strategic water reform at the very time when we should be preparing for the next inevitable drought. The Wentworth Group believes that we urgently need to reinvigorate the reform effort in order to tackle issues that remain unresolved as well as emerging water challenges. Water reform must be seen as a long-term endeavour rather than a one-off endeavour. Even the current government understands in its heart the value of the current approach. In 2004, the current Minister for the Environment—who does not talk very much about the environment these days—Mr Hunt, in a debate on the legislation that set up the commission, said: It is now our—this generation's—responsibility to take the steps in our national usage and in our personal usage to allow genuine health for the next generation. Mr Hunt was right then, but he is wrong now. Another submission to the Senate committee inquiry came from Associate Professor Stuart Khan of the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Professor Khan wrote: Without the National Water Commission, there is now no clear avenue through which to drive and harness the benefits from national coordination in water reform. He went on to argue that national economic growth could be impeded by the lack of national oversight over water management. Let me conclude by picking up on the view of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and its observation that water reform must be seen as a long-term endeavour, not a one-off exercise. I fear that the Commission of Audit, with an approach based purely on reducing spending, failed to understand this important concept. National co-ordination of water policy and management of the Murray-Darling Basin serves Australia's long-term interests. It is not just about the economy and it is not just about the environment. We hear much from this current government about intergenerational theft as it seeks to justify ideologically-driven spending cuts that hurt average Australians. Failing to exercise proper stewardship of our natural resources today could deny our grandchildren access to those resources. We want the Murray-Darling Basin to be more than just an environmental showpiece; we want it to also be a critical piece of economic infrastructure. It also has an ability to provide food for the nation and also to enable those people who live in— (Time expired) 16:45 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I note in relation to the comments of the previous speaker that the Labor government previously tasked the Productivity Commission to report on the acquisition of water entitlements and required that water entitlements be acquired at the lowest price possible. The Productivity Commission itself has written various other reports on the water industry over the past 10 years that have been very well received. I would add those remarks as comments following the previous speaker. On 25 September 2014 the government introduced the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014 into the Senate to abolish the National Water Commission with effect from January 2015. This gives effect to the government's 2014-15 budget commitment to abolish the National Water Commission. Ongoing reporting functions will be transferred to the Productivity Commission. The bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, which handed down its report on 24 November. The government has considered the report as well as submissions made by stakeholders and has made a number of refinements to the bill due to that committee process and has responded to the report. The National Water Commission was established as an independent statutory body by the Howard government under the National Water Commission Act 2004. The National Water Commission was responsible for assisting in the implementation of the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative and for providing advice to the Commonwealth and Council of Australian Governments on national water reform. It is worthwhile remembering that the National Water Initiative is not limited to the Murray-Darling Basin. The work done by the National Water Commission in conjunction with the non-basin states should not be overlooked. In particular, I would like to thank Elaine Gardner of my home state of Western Australia, former chairperson of the irrigator owned and run Ord Irrigation Cooperative, for the work she did as a commissioner on the National Water Commission. Elaine brought a broader perspective to the National Water Commission, and some of her efforts have come to fruition in the funding for the development of northern Australia in the budget. The principal role of the National Water Commission was to provide oversight and assessment of national water reforms. Since the Australian government and all state and territory governments agreed to the National Water Initiative in 2004, there has been considerable progress in enhancing the security of irrigation water entitlements, enabling water markets and trade, strengthening Australia's water resource information base and improving urban water security as well as environmental outcomes. An example from my own electorate of the important work that has now been completed was the National Water Commission co-contribution to the establishment of the first national water register in Australia. The National Irrigation Corporation's Water Entitlement Register, NICWER, was established to comply with the National Water Initiative requirements for an online searchable water entitlement register for irrigator owned schemes. Harvey Water in my electorate of Forrest is a proud foundation member of NICWER. The government remains committed to progress in national water reform and to supporting and promoting the implementation of the National Water Initiative. The National Water Commission has largely completed the important foundation work, and, whilst there is still work to be done in meeting all the obligations under the National Water Initiative, the primary focus will move to the ongoing reporting function established by the National Water Commission. For this reason, key National Water Commission functions will be retained and transferred to existing agencies. The Productivity Commission will take over primary responsibility for these ongoing functions. The bill requires one Productivity Commission commissioner to have extensive relevant skills and experience in water resource management. It requires the Productivity Commission to establish a stakeholder working group appointed by the minister for each matter referred to the Productivity Commission for inquiry. A stakeholder working group will be established, with stakeholders appointed by the productivity minister, who will participate on a voluntary basis. The group will consist of representatives of agricultural, environmental, industry, Indigenous or urban water bodies, or any other body with an interest in the matters referred to the Productivity Commission under the bill. The stakeholder working group will meet at least twice prior to the report being submitted to the productivity minister in respect of an inquiry referred to the Productivity Commission. This bill retains two key statutory functions previously undertaken by the National Water Commission. Firstly, it keeps triennial assessments of progress on implementation of the National Water Initiative and audits of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and associated Basin state water resource. This triennial assessment function will be transferred to the Productivity Commission. The triennial assessments report on progress towards achieving the outcomes and objectives of the National Water Initiative, and the assessments may include recommendations on actions that National Water Initiative parties might take to better implement the National Water Initiative. Secondly, under the Water Act 2007, the Productivity Commission will take over the role of the National Water Commission for five-yearly audits of the effectiveness of the implementation of the Basin Plan and water resource plans accredited under the Basin Plan. In addition, the amendments make minor technical changes to the bill to update the bill's commencement to the day after the bill receives royal assent, and a consequential change to amend the period to be covered by the National Water Commission's final annual report. I would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the work of the National Water Commission to date— the commissioners, the staff, the ministers, and the public servants in the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Most importantly of all, I want to thank the board and staff of all the irrigator-owned schemes who, at considerable cost to their own organisations, responded to the countless requests for information from the National Water Commission and changed their operating procedures to meet constantly changing legislative requirements. As a result of everyone's combined efforts, Australia is now recognised as a world leader in innovation in the rural water industry—something that should not be underestimated or overlooked. We should not underestimate either the value of irrigated production in Australia. ABS figures show that in 2013-14 $13.4 billion was made in fruit, vegetables, dairy, cotton, grapes; in nursery production and sugar cane; in meat, cattle, cereals and rice—an amazing variety of fresh and bulk foods. Irrigated land accounts for less than one per cent of all agricultural land in Australia, and irrigated production is a very valuable stimulus to regional economies. There are about 40,000 irrigators in Australia and, on average, irrigators produce 30 per cent of all agriculture value and half the profit in agriculture. It employs hundreds of thousands of people and, with the food-manufacturing sector, is Australia's largest manufacturing sector of all and a major exporter. We have sustainable irrigation practices in this country. I look at Myalup along my coastal strip; I will talk about Harvey Water, because it is in my electorate. It is a customer service business, delivering water to cooperative members—it is a cooperative of local growers—to small private irrigators and industrial users. They have employed innovative solutions to provide access to water based on efficient and sustainable irrigation techniques. Water is supplied via an environmentally-sound gravity-fed pipe and channel system, using some 2000 individual supply points, sourcing water from seven dams along the Darling Scarp from Waroona in the north to Wellington Dam near Collie in the south. The system spans over 112,000 hectares, with more than 450 kilometres of pipelines and 250 kilometres of channels. The water supplied is non-potable and is not suitable for household drinking and consumption, but it is ideal for providing prime dairy and beef cattle grazing pastures, horticultural irrigation and water for industrial use. The regional economic benefits are enormous, estimated at $100 million in gross value added production from agriculture, horticulture and from the water supplied. As a result of reviews of the operation of the scheme and Council of Australian Governments in1992 and reforms in water management, the irrigation system is now an irrigator-owned cooperative. It took over ownership of those assets and management in 1996. It is a dual cooperative business structure and that model was selected, with very good advice, to provide ongoing security for the assets. The business is owned by a management cooperative and the assets by a separate asset mutual cooperative. This structure has also enabled the ownership of entitlement to water to be separated from the land title, allowing water to be traded separately to the land. Irrigators own water in the form of shares in the cooperative, plus a corresponding certificate of water entitlement. In forming the cooperative, irrigators accepted that they should pay for the upkeep of the infrastructure because it provided a direct benefit to them. Harvey Water is very well-known; it resonates very well all around Australia, especially in my part of Western Australia. I want to talk briefly about the piping project that Harvey Water undertook. It was a three-year, $72 million project to pipe the Harvey Irrigation district. This particular project delivered over 17 gigalitres of water savings, which has now been transferred to the Water Corporation on a permanent basis—an efficiency gain. The Harvey pipe project is highly regarded on the national scene and is recognised as being the best of its type. It has a broad vision and a practical ability to save and trade water and to provide funds for what is a world-class water delivery system. I have spoken about this particular delivery system in various places around the world. The Harvey pipe project was the inaugural winner of WA Water Awards and the WA Engineering Excellence Award in 2006. The farmer cooperative proved a whole lot of people wrong. Many people said at the time that they would fail, but they have not. They have gone on to deliver in a very efficient way and they have a very sound business structure because they took very sound advice when setting up Harvey Water. They are still working towards replacing further channels with new piping. They will not stand still and they will continue to provide a range of solutions to the various issues and challenges they face. On that note, I conclude my remarks and support this particular bill. 16:57 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin From the outset I make it clear that I support the position outlined by the member for Port Adelaide and other Labor speakers in their contributions to this debate on the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015. I have listened to almost all the speakers thus far with a great deal of interest. This is a matter that does interest me because it is important to the state I represent, South Australia, and because I was part of the committee, along with the member for Riverina—who is sitting across the table—that was known as the Windsor committee, which looked into the Murray Darling Basin in recent years. It probably did so more extensively than any committee previously. I noted the member for Murray's contribution, and I would like to make some comments about that before I get to the substantive part of my contribution to the debate. I can well understand her comments and I certainly respect her for standing up for her community, but in my view she highlights just why we need a Murray Darling Basin Plan, why we need agreement to that plan from each of the four states and the ACT and why the National Water Commission should be retained. It should be retained to ensure that, once that plan is in place and once there is agreement to it, it is complied with. If there needs to be any changes to it, those changes should be based on objective and independent evidence, which to date has been provided by the National Water Commission. I want to correct another point, which I hear time and time again from members in the eastern states with respect to what happened in recent years. The claim that there was a push to ensure that South Australia got more water simply to save the Lower Lakes is simply wrong. The reality is that in the years leading up to the last drought we had, which commenced in the late nineties, water allocations and water use in Victoria almost doubled and in New South Wales they trebled, whilst in South Australia water use had remained pretty flat line over the previous 40 years. It was because of the over allocations in the eastern states that we reached the point where the system was totally unsustainable. The purpose of this bill is to abolish the National Water Commission and transfer its tasks to the Productivity Commission. Those tasks include the five-yearly audits of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the triennial assessments of the National Water Initiative and the biennial National Water Planning Report Card. The National Water Commission was established in 2004 by the Howard government. It was a coalition government that put it in place, and it did so for the right reasons. It did so in response to the need to better manage the water resources of this country, and it did so because the issue came to ahead in the midst of a drought, when there were serious problems confronting Australia widely with respect to that drought. In particular, those problems threatened the future security of the agricultural sector and primary industries—literally right across the country but certainly in the Murray-Darling Basin region. Those problems threatened the future of farming families, the country communities and the environmental assets that all relied on that water. Indeed, national water security had emerged as a national priority a decade ago, just as it has across the world today. Climate change and population growth have seen a serious depletion of water resources right around the world. The National Water Commission has put Australia, over the last 10 years, at the forefront internationally of good water management policies. It has provided consistency and certainty for both government and the private sector, and it has provided non-political, evidence based guidance on national water management issues. Whilst my remarks will be focused on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, I take the point made by the member for Forrest in her contribution that the commission was indeed responsible for more than the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and that responsibility extended to all water resources across the country. In respect to the Murray-Darling Basin, the basin spans the four states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and also covers the Australian Capital Territory. It is an area of about a million square kilometres. It is home to over two million Australians and it produces almost half of Australia's irrigated agricultural products. It is a major Australian economic, environmental and social asset. Its sustainability is vital to Australia's future. The last drought exposed just how poorly the basin had been managed in the past. Indeed, that mismanagement resulted in the distorted water market, in the buybacks that we had, and in growers and farmers being unable to access water at critical times in the production of their crops. The result was that farmers lost properties or sunk into debt, towns struggled to survive, businesses closed down, farms were abandoned, and environmental disasters occurred across the basin—nowhere more so than in South Australia at the Lower Lakes and at the Coorong. That drought highlighted the urgency of a national agreement on the Murray-Darling plan—something that the states had been bickering over for about 100 years. Labor, after 100 years, led by the minister at the time, Tony Burke, was able to secure an agreement that we, on this side of parliament, believed would at least provide the necessary security for the future of the basin, and the families, communities and businesses that lived within it. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the National Water Commission were both critical to the security of the two million people that lived within the plan. It seems that—just because in recent years we have had some good rain falls and water inflows have been restored into the basin—we have now slipped back, or at least the government has slipped back, into a position of complacency about management of the basin. The reality is that water security is still under extreme uncertainty, with both climate change and mining activities in the basin area adding to the need to carefully manage the national water resources that we have. Yet what has occurred is the opposite. We have seen the Council of Australian Governments abolish the Standing Council on the Environment and Water. We have seen the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative ceased. We have seen the water buybacks cutback to 1,500 gigalitres; indeed, in South Australia we have seen the cuts to the water buybacks threaten the additional 450 gigalitres that had been secured as part of the 3,200-gigalitre target by the previous government. This government has pushed those water buybacks back by a couple of years and capped the total number of water buybacks to 1,500 gigalitres. We have also seen a government that does not take climate change seriously. It is still clear that climate change sceptics in the coalition continue to influence government policy on their side of this House. Indeed, when the world response to climate change appears to be growing, and when leaders in countries like the US, China, and India are all increasing their commitment to tackling climate change, the responses that we see in Australia are sending Australia in the opposite direction. I focus on climate change because, in my view, it remains the single largest threat to water security across Australia—as it does across the world. That threat transfers directly onto farmers, primary producers and country communities whose livelihoods depend entirely on access to water. Good management of Australia's water resources minimises the risk and provides added security. That is why having a body such as the National Water Commission is so important. It is very likely that we will see another drought sometime in the future. Even the climate change sceptics who claim that droughts are a feature of the Australian landscape will have to acknowledge that if that is the case sooner or later we will face another drought. When it does come, it would be much wiser for us to be prepared as a country—unlike during the last drought. An independent, expert and objective body overseeing Australia's water resources serves the national interest—as the National Water Commission has done for the last 10 years. The Abbott government's approach of transferring responsibility to the Productivity Commission is a change that, as other speakers on this side of the House have made clear, has very little support from the stakeholders—the people who understand best what is required and how to best manage the water resources we have. We have no guarantee, from listening to the government speakers on this bill, that the Productivity Commission will have the necessary expertise or the necessary resources required to competently carry out its job. It is not a question of whether the people there are expert or not; it is a question of whether they are going to be given the support staff and the resources they need to carry out the role. And if they are, at what cost will that come and what will the savings be, given that the government claims that this measure is going to save some $20 million? Equally concerning is that, rather than having such a national asset managed by a group that is solely focused on that role, it will be transferred to a department that has oversight of so many other roles. I do not believe anyone can seriously claim that managing water resources will get the same level of scrutiny and attention that it would have had the National Water Commission continued. I suspect the real objective in abolishing the National Water Commission, apart from the meagre savings referred to by the government, is to remove scrutiny of the Abbott government's commitment to water resources in this country, and to avoid any criticism of the government for mismanaging Australia's water resources. In other words: get this group out of the way so the government cannot be scrutinised in the same way. We have already seen the Abbott government cut some $650 million of water buybacks, which, as I said earlier, seriously jeopardises the government's ability to get to the 3,200 gigalitre target that was set by the previous government. South Australia, the state I represent, is at the end of the river system. South Australia will be the loser if that 3,200 gigalitre target is not met. That may not matter to the people in the eastern states, but it certainly does matter to South Australians. I heard the contribution from the member for Barker. His predecessor was indeed a member of the Windsor committee that looked into the Murray-Darling Basin. I doubt very much that his predecessor would have agreed to the abolition of the National Water Commission, and I will say something about that in just a moment. But what I noted from the member for Barker's comments was that he talked up the importance of the farming community that he represents, and its reliance on the waters that come into South Australia, but then said nothing about how he is going to take a stand to support and secure those water resources. The Windsor committee, which the previous member for Barker was on, made 21 recommendations with respect to management of the Murray-Darling Basin. The first thing I do not know is how many of those recommendations the Abbott government is committed to. What I do know is that recommendation 21 clearly stated that the National Water Commission would be tasked with a whole range of responsibilities, including the very responsibilities that this bill seeks to take away from them. This bill flies entirely in the face of, and is contrary to, the recommendations of the last committee of this parliament that looked into the management of Australian water resources. By and large, the committee's recommendations—and certainly recommendation 21—were not contentious. They were bipartisan recommendations from both sides of this parliament, and yet the government now chooses to throw them out the window for nothing more than its own political agenda of, firstly, not having to face up to the scrutiny that would be applied to it by the National Water Commission, and, secondly, claiming that it would save a meagre handful of dollars. As the member for Grayndler quite rightly pointed out, we are talking about a basin that sustains a $66 billion economy, and yet we are prepared to put it at risk for the saving of a few meagre dollars. (Time expired) 17:12 Mr WHITELEY 207800 Braddon I thank the House for this opportunity to speak on the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015. There is no question, despite all the murmurings and mutterings—call it what you will—of those opposite, that the Abbott coalition government is committed to ensuring that this country protects its water resources, and at the same time it is equally committed to developing new water infrastructure. The National Water Commission was established, as we have heard so many speakers reflect on, in 2004 by the Howard government to improve water security for all Australians in the face of a widescale drought in regional and rural Australia. These were the cries—the requests, the pleas—of the Australian people, and the Howard government responded accordingly. The commission was designed to uphold the roles of the National Water Initiative. This starts to get a little complicated, but let us not forget what I just said—the commission was designed to uphold the roles of the National Water Initiative. The National Water Initiative is designed to uphold the principles of trying to improve the efficiency of Australia's water use to promote investment for regional Australia—particularly towards the farming community—and, through programs, to promote environmental concerns. Of course we want to focus attention on our farming community, the great wealth creators of our nation, the people who put us on the map across the world as far as branding goes and whose produce is increasingly being sought by the growing Asian middle class. This is done through creating markets and trade for water and increasing urban water security. It is quite simple. This government firmly believes the National Water Commission's work can be better carried out through the Productivity Commission. It will also be done through consultation between the state and territory and federal governments so that the public remains confident that government institutions make sure that the National Water Initiative is maintained. I want to spend a moment on this point. This work will be undertaken by the Productivity Commission. It will also be done through consultation between the state, territory and federal governments. Those opposite would have you believe—as the previous speaker, the member for Makin, was insinuating—that there is some conspiracy here, where all levels of government— Mr Champion interjecting— Mr WHITELEY 207800 excuse me; are you right over there?—are conspiring to act in an untoward way when it comes to the national security of water. Well, we have good people working in the Productivity Commission and we have good people working at a state and territory level. We have experienced, qualified and committed people who will work, I am sure, to meet the principles of the initiative. The reality is that the function of the Water Commission was more about auditing. Anybody who knows anything about that commission knows that it was more about auditing than it was about developing future water infrastructure. We ought to know a little bit about what happened here and we ought to put the record straight: the reality is that the function of the commission was more about auditing than it was about developing future water infrastructure. The development of water infrastructure is very important to my electorate, very important indeed. The state and federal governments have a great history of working together, believe it or not, to reform water security for both country Australia and urban population centres. A key example of how the state and federal governments can work together to develop water infrastructure is to be seen in my home state of Tasmania. My lower house colleagues Eric Hutchinson and Andrew Nikolic, our Tasmanian colleagues in the Senate and I have joined the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, who is also the Minister for Primary Industries and Water, and local farmers to work together alongside Tasmanian Irrigation to come up with five tranche 2 projects for Northern Tasmania. We made an announcement in relation to federal funding of $60 million just recently; that is going to be on top of the state contribution of $30 million. I take this opportunity to highlight one of those projects, rather than to repeat much of what my colleague from Lyons, Eric Hutchinson, said earlier in this place, in a terrific speech. I encourage those either listening to or watching this to go to the member for Lyons' website and have a look at the speech that he made, which was a very creative way of explaining what has been happening in Tasmania over a certain period. It even had its own little hint of poetry and romance, which was a really excellent way of explaining the rainfall, the run-offs and the complications of the climate, as it is, for Tasmania. I recommend people go and read that. The project I wish to highlight in this place is the Circular Head project, which is one of the five projects listed for priority funding. It will provide key pipelines to improve the ability to irrigate in the Circular Head region, one of the great pacesetters for dairy and all that comes from the dairy industry in our state. It is a blessing. Every day, they wake up down there with their pastures, and the quality of the milk that literally flows from that region should be, shall I say, shouted from the rooftops. That project will also increase the number of pump stations so that many, many more farmers can gain access to quality water. This project will release 21,400 megalitres to give that access to farmers in the region. It will create up to 150 jobs and help improve the ability of farmers to export their quality produce to both interstate and overseas markets, as well as improve the water security of the region. What is happening in my home state when it comes to agriculture and horticulture is exciting. It is exciting, indeed, to see the levels of confidence and the increasing levels of investment coming on the back of people's own belief in what they can attain in the global economy. Obviously, it would be an understatement to say that the agricultural sector in Tasmania, more particularly in the north-west of my electorate, is excited about the prospects that are going to flow from the free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China, and, hopefully, a free trade agreement with India, by opening up those export markets for these products—which will now, by the way, be able to be freighted to these export markets, with the enhancement of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, making them more competitive. In our electorates, we see people from all over the world all the time. They want Australian produce. But, dare I say in this place, above Australian branding, they want Tasmanian branding. They want Cape Grim beef, they want King Island beef, they want the cleanliness of Cape Grim water, they want the top-notch whisky, they want the cheese, they want the berries. My job is to be an ambassador for my electorate, and it is quite an easy task when you have such good produce to sell. So there are exciting days ahead, but for that to continue to grow in our state—at the state level, not just in my electorate—we need water infrastructure. I know we get plenty of rain, but we have more run-off as a percentage than pretty well anywhere else in the country. We have to capture the run-off from the rainfall in our great state and make sure it is put back where it is needed. I take this opportunity to thank Jeremy Rockliff, the Minister for Primary Industry and Water in Tasmania, and the Prime Minister for their willingness to work together with the Tasmanian Liberal team to make sure that all Tasmanians can benefit from the work of their governments. Some Tasmanian senators—not from this side of the House—have made statements in the Senate which are totally incorrect. I suspect that that will come as no surprise to many. Mr Champion HW9 What's this got to do with the bill? Mr WHITELEY 207800 Mr Deputy Speaker, can we just— Mr Champion interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWO Order! The member for Wakefield. Mr Champion HW9 Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: you have to be relevant to the bill. This is completely irrelevant to the bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWO Order! The member for Wakefield will resume his seat. I take the point of order. The member for Braddon. Mr WHITELEY 207800 Thank you to the member who has just resumed his seat. He is totally irrelevant to this House. Senator Urquhart, in the other place— Mr Champion HW9 What's this got to do with the Murray-Darling? The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWO Member for Wakefield, we will hear the remarks and then decide whether they are relevant. Mr WHITELEY 207800 Senator Urquhart has stated that abolishing the board would be short-sighted, that the savings are not worth it, that the government is not about standing for accountability and that we are only going backwards with our approach. Senator Singh has also made similar points. Well, the first point I want to make is that this body was originally intended to go for eight years. Eight years is enough to improve how we look at water security and improve our systems with major effect. A large chunk of the hard yards has already been done by the National Water Commission, and keeping it going would simply be a waste. What is not short-sighted is to make efficiencies where there will be minimal difference or no difference in the ability for the work to be done. In my view, it is short-sighted to keep a bloated body going, and I support this bill. This government has always considered water to be, in the words of Senator Urquhart, an A-level issue. This is why we are debating the merits of this bill for all. This bill deserves the support of the House. 17:24 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I rise in opposition to this bill, and for good reason. One of the main reasons is that it was not what the government told the people of Australia when they were in opposition. What did they say when they were in opposition? In Our plan: real solutions for all Australians they talked about 'the direction, values and policy priorities of the next coalition government'. They have broken every single commitment in this document. It says a lot about their values. They do not judge these commitments as important at all; they throw them out the window like confetti. There is only one dot-point on improving water security and better water management: 'We will deliver on the 10-point plan for the Murray-Darling announced by the Howard government. We will restore the Murray-Darling to health' et cetera. This bill abolishes the National Water Commission, which was set up by the Howard government. Imagine if they had gone to the last election— Mr Briggs interjecting— Mr CHAMPION HW9 The member for Mayo knows all about breaking commitments to South Australia—on cars, submarines and many other things. If they had gone to the people of South Australia at the last election and said they were going to get rid of the National Water Commission—a $20 million save—imagine the response from South Australia! The reason they did not put that in Real Solutions is that they knew that would lose some votes. They knew that their broken promises, their broken commitments, their broken word would lose them votes. The National Water Commission looks into the health of the Murray-Darling Basin—oversees it all, provides expertise, provides updates, provides information to the public and to government. Everybody knows that the reason for getting rid of it and giving it to the Productivity Commission is about not just a $20 million saving, but getting the policeman off the beat so that they can go back to 'business as usual'. And we know what 'business as usual' is. In 1943, my Labor predecessor Sid McHugh asked Menzies the exact same question about the usage of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. So this has been an issue for— Mr Briggs IYU Your favourite Liberal Prime Minister fixed it. John Howard fixed it. Mr CHAMPION HW9 I hear the member for Mayo talking about 'my favourite Liberal Prime Minister'—and I think that is perhaps stretching it a bit far. But give Prime Minister Howard some credit. He did the right thing on guns. He showed some courage on guns. He would have shown more courage if he had taken his Murray-Darling Basin Plan to cabinet. He probably should have taken it to cabinet; that would have been good. Mr BRIGGS IYU It did go to cabinet. Mr CHAMPION HW9 Before or after the announcement, member for Mayo? Those were the days of benign despotism in the Liberal Party. We know that John Howard put this framework to the people of Australia, to the parliament, and it was all about fixing the Murray-Darling Basin. Many South Australians took that very seriously indeed—because we are affected by it, because we are at the end of the river, and everybody knows we have to live with the consequences of what goes on. The National Water Commission, created by the Howard government in 2004, provides independent assessment on the progress of governments on water reform; audits the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; assesses the performance of basin states in implementing milestones under the National Partnership on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin; plays a role in the assessment of carbon farming initiatives; and publishes water market reports and national performance reports on metropolitan and regional water agencies. Those are important things for government, for the public and, in particular, for my state of South Australia—and everybody knows it. People regard it as important, and this has been a big issue in South Australia for a long time. I have seen some of the benefits for the Murray-Darling. In places like the City of Salisbury, Playford and in the Gawler River we have undertaken big projects to take the pressure off the River Murray. There is a tendency amongst governments and, indeed, the community to take the foot off the accelerator a bit when it rains, to say she'll be right. But I heard a news report the other day about South Australian dam capacity this year. It is meant to be 55 per cent and it is more like 44 per cent at the moment because the rain is falling at different places. You do not need much to go wrong in Australia in terms of rainfall for there to be serious problems. The Sydney Morning Herald on 13 May this year said 'Parched New South Wales seeks help as National Water Commission axed'. You have Premier Baird writing to Queensland, Deputy Speaker Vasta's state, basically begging about the situation in Broken Hill, where they are down to four per cent of their reserves. This is a major town in New South Wales. Broken Hill is a great city, a great home of the Labor movement, and they have to ask the Queenslanders for water. It is a very concerning thing when we have the National Water Commission being axed. The people of Broken Hill are in a dire situation and they have been in that situation for quite some time. And what does the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists say? John Williams from the Wentworth Group said, 'This is the very time we should be building on water reform.' That gives you some idea of how the public sees things, how expert groups see things. The National Farmers' Federation in their submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee wrote to Senator Ruston. They said: I am writing in response to the call for submissions to the Senate Inquiry into the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2014 (herein the Bill). While the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) was disappointed to see the National Water Commission (NWC) abolished, the Government’s commitment to continuing many of the NWC’s key roles is welcomed. The National Farmers' Federation generally do not criticise the government, so that is about as close as they get, but in this letter they reiterate their desire to make sure that the Productivity Commission actually does the role of the National Water Commission. Here is an idea: rather than tasking the Productivity Commission with doing it, why don't we just keep the National Water Commission? That would be the sensible thing to do. We know the submission from the National Water Commission by the Hon. Karlene Maywald, who does know something about the River Murray. She makes some very good points about the commissioners and says: Commissioners strongly support the continuation of independent oversight and public accountability of governments and government-owned enterprises beyond the life of the NWC. Strengths of the NWC have been that it reports to all Australian governments and to COAG, its Commissioners were nominated by all states and territories as well as the Commonwealth for their specific expertise, and it provided a skills-based national perspective not driven by shorter term interests. So this is a government commission that underwrites the national interest in an area we know has been plagued by the states' interests, by sectional interests and by personal interests. It is sad because it is a great river and we all have some attachment to it. I have been to places like Mildura. My first girlfriend—my first real girlfriend!—was from Mildura, and I know it is where the member for Mayo is from. I remember going up to Mildura in the 1990s, and people were going crazy developing underutilised water licences. They would buy the block next door for the water licence and they would exploit that water licence. They would say to you, 'We're going to do this because we know we won't be able to do it five, 10 years down the track.' The states are given water of value through the Hilmer reforms, and perhaps not one of the best effects was that it set off a bit of a gold rush in places like Mildura, sadly. I think we had some exploitation of water licences that previously lay dormant. So we have to be a bit concerned about this government making a $20 million saving. I am surprised that a South Australian minister like Senator Birmingham would fall for this save, because we know what will happen: the old state interests will come back into play and they will aim in the short term to manipulate river flows for their own interests. What we need is a national approach, and that is why we had the National Water Commission. Stuart Khan is quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald on 26 November last year: "Simon Birmingham's assertion that 'the purpose of the NWC has been fulfilled' is akin to saying 'water management in Australia is fixed and there's nothing more to do'," Dr Khan said. "This is a patently ridiculous assertion ... and the looming east coast drought will make that clear for all." We certainly hope we do not suffer drought, but you only have to look at some of the bureau forecasts to know that it is a possibility. If South Australia experiences drought and if South Australia experiences difficulty then they will look at this decision of the government, and it will be one more broken promise by this government. We know the Australian Conservation Foundation in their overview to the Senate committee said: To abolish the National Water Commission (NWC) and give responsibility of water management to the Productivity Commission would be a short-sighted and backward step, particularly in the absence of substantial changes to the mandate and operation of the Productivity Commission. It would likely result in another wave of conflicts over water due to the absence of what all sides regard as a well-respected expert independent body. The ACF rightly points out that we will go back to South Australia pointing upstream, New South Wales pointing downstream and upstream and Queenslanders doing what they please, being at the head of the river. Mr Perrett HVP That's not a bad thing! Mr CHAMPION HW9 The member for Moreton says that's not a bad thing! But we love Queensland. It is a great place. But we cannot have the state governments finger-pointing upstream and downstream. We need a National Water Commission as an independent umpire and trusted body providing that expert information so that we can make sound public policy decisions and so we can be judged on those public policy decisions. We do not want to go back to the situation that Sydney McHugh talked about in one of his first questions in the old House to Prime Minister Menzies. We do not want another 50 years of inaction. As I said before, this was Prime Minister Howard's framework. This was largely his policy design. Yet we have a coalition government destroying it and ripping it asunder at a time when it is not right to do so because we have not fixed the job. We oppose this bill, and we oppose it for good reason. There has been plenty of evidence to the Senate inquiry to say that this is a foolish move by the government, it is a silly save and it will do long-term damage. That is something we should not welcome. This is one of those broken promises. You see them with the National Water Commission. You see them on the river in South Australia. You see them in the car industry. Every week I see the damage inflicted on my state by decisions of this government on the car industry. We have seen them with the submarines. We have seen them in health and education across the country. We know this is a government of broken promises, and they should be held accountable for this broken promise. 17:38 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I am not sure about broken promises, but we just heard a broken record. The member for Wakefield is somebody from South Australia who is passionate—I will give him that—but he was talking about the overarching responsibility for water. It does not belong to the National Water Commission. It is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. We heard the member for Makin earlier talking about meagre savings. That is precisely what is wrong with Labor. Labor cannot manage money. This is going to save $21 million. This is going to take $21 million off the bottom line. Those are not meagre savings; that is a substantial amount of money. That is what is wrong with Labor. If they do not think that $21 million is worth saving then there is something seriously wrong. We saw in the six years under Labor that Labor could not manage water. The National Water Commission is going to be wound up, consistent with the Commission of Audit recommendations and measures outlined in the 2014-15 budget. It is outlined in that budget. This bill abolishes the NWC by repealing the National Water Commission Act of 2004. It makes consequential amendments to the Water Act of 2007 to enable that to happen. It will transfer certain NWC functions to the Productivity Commission, where they should be, and it will provide transitional arrangements to facilitate the closure of the NWC. I do not often listen to the member for Wakefield and give him too much credibility, but someone I do give a lot of credibility to is Debbie Buller from my electorate. Debbie Buller and her husband, Stuart, own and lease 900 hectares of broadacre irrigation farm at Murrami. They grow rice, corn, wheat, oats, canola and barley. She is the president of an organisation founded in 2010 which I am also a founding member of, and that is the Murrumbidgee Valley Food and Fibre Association. She is also an executive member of the Ricegrowers' Association, NSW Farmers and the New South Wales Irrigators' Council. So when Debbie Buller sends me an email or says something on the phone, I listen. She talked to me this afternoon about increased bureaucracy. She is absolutely furiously in agreement with the coalition's bill that we are debating here now. We are about to hear from the parliamentary secretary, who will sum up on this bill, and then we will vote on it. When Debbie Buller recently wrote to me about increased bureaucracy she said: 'While there is some rationale behind claiming that some of the states had overallocated water, the Water Act 2007 and the subsequent Murray-Darling Basin Plan have not recognised the historical reasons for that overallocation and therefore not repaired the problem. They have instead exacerbated the problem.' She continued: 'Instead of simplifying and streamlining water regulation and management, this process has added at least four extra levels of independent bureaucracy.' She mentioned that CEWH, BOM, MDBA and the ACCC seem to be in a power struggle with the corresponding state entities. She listed the number of bureaucracies, state and federal, just in the southern connected system that are directly involved in informing water management operations, regulations and pricing. For the sake of the Hansard, I am going to read them out. They are: the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Primary Industries, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, Local Land Services, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, ministerial councils, the New South Wales Office of Water, the Office of Environment and Heritage, Snowy Hydro Ltd, the State Water Corporation, the Victorian government, the South Australian government, Coleambally Irrigation Ltd, Murrumbidgee Irrigation and Murray Irrigation Ltd. I am almost out of breath! That is how many organisations and layers and levels of bureaucracy that good farmers, such as Debbie and Stu Buller at Murrami, and the good people of the Murrumbidgee, Murray and Coleambally irrigation areas have to contend with. That is fine. But we are getting rid of the National Water Commission because we believe that the job can be done by other entities. We can lessen the bureaucracy. The Productivity Commission will be responsible for the triennial assessment of progress towards achieving NWI objectives as well as the biennial national water planning report card which is produced under the triennial assessment. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 You should listen, Member for Wakefield: you might learn something. Obviously in the 15 minutes of my life that you wasted talking about your ex-girlfriends, cars, submarines and all the rest of it— Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 At least the member for Braddon was talking about water, Member for Moreton. The Productivity Commission will also have responsibility for the independent audit of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and associated water resource plans. The Department of the Environment will be responsible for assessing milestone payments to Murray-Darling Basin states against the performance milestones specified in the national partnership agreement on implementing MDB reform. The department will also provide advice on the status of the implementation of the National Water Initiative to the Clean Energy Regulator, as required under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Rule regulations of 2011. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, ABARES, will take responsibility for monitoring water markets and producing an annual water markets report. The Bureau of Meteorology is working with state and territory governments and the water industry to continue the national performance reports for the urban water sector, which will provide a crucial annual snapshot of this section of the industry. The 2013-14 NPR was released on 7 May. Interestingly, just a week after that NPR was released, we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, who, in his budget in-reply speech, said: Confidence for new rail and roads and new ports and bridges, better social housing, smart energy grids, efficient irrigation projects and of course, the best digital infrastructure. So there we have the Leader of the Opposition talking about efficient irrigation projects. Labor members would not know an irrigation channel if they fell over one! Mr Perrett HVP I worked on one. I was a cotton chipper for six years. My sister owned a cotton farm. Mr McCORMACK 219646 For six years we had a man-made drought. We had the Millennium Drought inflicted by mother nature on the irrigation communities of my area, the Riverina, and then for six years— Mr Perrett HVP Take that back! Mr McCORMACK 219646 All right, I will take it back. There you go. He worked on an irrigation channel. Most of the members of the Labor Party would not know an irrigation channel if they fell over one. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I see the member for Moreton nodding, because he knows—present company excluded—that that is so true. Admittedly, Tony Burke came to Griffith, which is in my area, and bravely fronted the good folk there. Certainly, I gave him credit at those meetings, because it was important that we heard from him. He had a title as long as your arm—'population', 'sustainability', 'communities' and 'water'—but essentially water was in there. He was also a former minister for agriculture. At least he did go there. But the trouble with the minister was that he went, he listened but he did not act. We had a Murray-Darling Basin Plan which took so much water out of productive use in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, the MIA. It was just cruel to those farmers. I read now from a report from a very old book titled Water into gold. I have to say that water is the most important thing that we will discuss in this House today. National security is obviously very crucial, too, but at this point in time water is one of the most crucial things that we will discuss in this House. The foreword to this book was written by Alex F Bell, CMG. He writes: 'The vision of Alfred Deakin that given water the most arid spaces could and would furnish produce the equal in quality of any grown throughout the world was realised by the courage of the Chaffeys and those who served under their banners and who, in the face of great handicaps, carried these river areas to a success, which has given prosperous cities and towns where 50 years ago a few sheep grazed on stations and regarded as dangerous country by the settlers who were opening up the pastoral districts of the Murray River area.' He could have easily included the Murrumbidgee area as well. That was out of the 1946 edition, the seventh edition, of this book. It is correct. What we saw when Labor was in power—and we talk of bureaucracy— Mr Champion interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 I am not using these reports as a prop—was that Riverina farmers, the good farmers in the Murray and Coleambally areas and elsewhere in the Murray-Darling Basin area, including South Australia, were expected to go through these sorts of voluminous tomes, to analyse and read them, whilst they were getting on with the job—and they do a fine job, too—of growing the food and fibre to feed and clothe our nation. In the Riverina alone, the ABARES statistics for 2012-13—so that is a while ago and they have obviously increased in value since then—were that the gross value of agriculture production in New South Wales was $12.1 billion, of which 16 per cent came from the Riverina region. It is probably higher now. In 2012-13 wheat contributed $443 million to the value of agriculture production just in this region. Fruit and nuts, excluding grapes, accounted for 12 per cent—that is $231 million—with the major crops being oranges, $129 million; apples, $36 million; and cherries, $6 million. Canola accounted for 11 per cent at $227 million; rice seven per cent at $148 million; and vegetables six per cent at $127 million. The parliamentary secretary, Mr Baldwin, who is sitting beside me and who will in a moment sum up the bill, knows this well. He recently came to my electorate and visited Narrandera, Griffith, Coleambally and Whitton— Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 and Southern Cotton—and he saw for himself the great benefit that water gives to the Riverina region and the great benefits that the Riverina region gives by transforming that water into food and fibre to feed this nation and, indeed, many others. The parliamentary secretary saw it with his own eyes. He was impressed—as he should be. This legislation is very, very important. The cap on water buybacks of 1,500 gigalitres makes it doubly important that this legislation passes. The Abbott-Truss government is strongly committed to progressing water reform, and we will continue the principles of the National Water Initiative. The water sector has made great progress on water reform. The sort of reform that we want to see from this side of the House will make sure that we do not continue to buy water ad hoc out of those productive areas. What we are doing is we are capping the buyback, which is important, and we are capping— Mr Champion HW9 You can only buy it from willing sellers, can't you. Mr McCORMACK 219646 But willing sellers, member for Wakefield, were only willing sellers in many instances because their banks were forcing them to pay back the debt that they had, and there were many of them who were not willing sellers. They wanted to get on with the job of farming as their fathers had done, as their grandfathers had done, as their forebears had done when they first settled in the Griffith, Leeton and Narrandera areas back in the early 1900s. They were sent there by government to grow the food to feed this nation, and the government of their nation turned its back on them and implemented bad water policy, which we are now trying to fix. The key outcome sought from the legislation is the transfer of two statutory NWC functions to the Productivity Commission on an ongoing basis: the triennial assessments of progress by the National Water Initiative parties towards achieving the objectives and outcomes of the National Water Initiative and also the five-yearly audits of progress towards implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. That is what the National Water Commission was doing. It was not an overarching body, as the member for Wakefield made out in his contribution. It was implementing those five-yearly audits of progress towards the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It was set up, as the member for Wakefield quite correctly pointed out, in 2004 by the former Howard government, but only for a period of eight years. Now we are 11 years on. The National Water Commission has done its job and it is time to say: 'Farewell and thanks.' With that, I will now sit and I will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to sum up this important piece of legislation. 17:52 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson It is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity today to sum up debate on the National Water Commission (Abolition) Bill 2015. It has been a long journey since last year. I would like to thank the Senate for passing this bill, and all the senators and the members of parliament who have contributed to the debate. As I outlined in my speech earlier today, the purpose of this bill is to repeal the National Water Commission Act of 2004 in order to abolish the National Water Commission. The National Water Commission has played an important role in the monitoring and auditing of water reform policy implementation and management nationally since the National Water Initiative was agreed to a decade ago. This legislation abolishes the National Water Commission as a stand-alone agency, but—and this is a very significant point—the Abbott government will not be abolishing the key functions of the National Water Commission, which is something that seems to have escaped members opposite. We will not be abolishing the key functions carried out by the National Water Commission; our government will ensure they are enshrined with the appropriate body to ensure these auditing and monitoring functions are undertaken. Firstly, I would like to point out that water reform in this country is directed by the Commonwealth and state governments—the governments responsible for managing water each and every day in this nation. Those in opposition would have the public believe the water reform that was implemented on the ground extensively across the country in both the urban and rural water space was only achieved because of the National Water Commission. That is absolutely false. I am appreciative of the work of the National Water Commission. They have done an outstanding job, a great job, in encouraging national water reform and in making sure, particularly in the early years, that the states and the Commonwealth worked to implement the National Water Initiative principles. That is the key point here; it was the implementation of the National Water Initiative principles—they drove it and made sure it was adhered to. It was the states, however, that improved our urban water management, the states that drove the development of our water markets and the states that are working with the Commonwealth to implement the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. As I say, I thank the National Water Commission for the work they have undertaken since 2005, but I have to be honest and acknowledge the work undertaken by the responsible ministers and departments at state and Commonwealth levels to make Australia a world leader in water management. The National Water Initiative principles that continue to guide us today were developed and agreed to by all governments in 2004, and this important milestone helped to set our nation on a pathway of improving the management of our most important resource—water—with a national focus. Most significantly, this happened in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, which has been the most significant water management exercise in the world, perhaps only surpassed by the work that is currently happening in the Mekong. From listening to the speakers on the other side of the House you could be mistaken for thinking that the National Water Commission is the primary body responsible for developing and implementing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The plan was developed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and is being implemented by relevant departments of both Commonwealth and basin states. The Abbott government has committed to delivering the Basin Plan in full with triple bottom line focus that ensures the future for farmers, the community and the environment. The abolition of the National Water Commission will not impact upon this commitment. I want to restate that, because obviously members on the other side are not listening: the abolition of the National Water Commission will not restrict the ability of governments at a state or federal level to deliver plans in full with integrity on time. We will meet the needs of every aspect of the environment through investing in water efficiency and infrastructure projects that will underpin the future productivity of our regional communities. In continuing with the understanding that it is the Commonwealth and state governments that continue to drive the nation's water reform agenda, our government will ensure that the oversight of the work being done to uphold and further the National Water Initiative principles continues. As many of the speakers have outlined today, the Productivity Commission will now be responsible for this work. This is a body of respected individuals who are well known for their independent advice to government, but I regret to say that, given the statements made by members on the other side of the chamber here today, they doubt the abilities or the integrity of the Productivity Commission. They doubt that they have the expertise to undertake key functions that are assigned to them; they doubt they can understand the complex nature of water issues. As colleagues of mine on this side have said, we are appalled to think that those opposite think so little of the Productivity Commission and their integrity and their ability. Over many years the Productivity Commission has demonstrated an ability to handle wide-ranging and complex issues, including water. They are no strangers to water. The Productivity Commission has released no fewer than 40 separate reports on all areas of water, from urban water reform to declining water quality and diversity of farm irrigation. These reports include the 2006 research report Rural water use in the environment; the 2011 public inquiry into the Australian urban water sector; Towards urban water reform in 2008; Arrangements for setting drinking water standards in 2000 and so on—as I said, 40 separate reports covering all areas and aspects of water. This work achieved a complex, nuanced examination and was well received across industry, particularly by the urban water industry and their representatives—the Australian Water Association and the Water Services Association of Australia. There are many other stakeholders who have supported the Productivity Commission's work, including the National Farmers' Federation—I want members opposite to hear this: including the National Farmers' Federation—who have been referred to extensively by opposition speakers in absolute ignorance, or arrogance. Yes, the NFF has some concerns with the transfer of functions to the Productivity Commission. But we actually listened to these. We addressed them. And in the government amendments that were moved in the Senate—which if members had actually looked at they would have understood—they bolster the stakeholder consultation and ensure the appointment of an associate commissioner with expertise in water resource management for each and every inquiry referred to the Productivity Commission. This is something that the Labor Party would have known if they had actually bothered to talk to the NFF. You see, the NFF put out a media release on 14 May which welcomed the passing of the abolition bill through the Senate and which commended the government for ensuring 'continued independent oversight of water reform'. I thank the NFF for working collaboratively with this government to ensure a positive outcome to this legislation. What it shows yet again is that the Labor Party is devoid of any ability to contribute to sensible, responsible policy development and legislation in this nation. I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved and reiterate the functions that will be continuing under the government's legislation. As I said, the Productivity Commission will be responsible for the triennial assessment of progress towards achieving the National Water Initiative objectives, as well as the biennial National Water Planning Report Card, which is produced under the triennial assessment. The Productivity Commission will also have responsibility for the independent audit of implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and associated water resource plans. The Department of the Environment will be responsible for assessing milestone payments to the Murray-Darling Basin states against the performance milestones specified in the National Partnership Agreement on implementing Murray-Darling Basin reform. The Department of the Environment will also provide advice on the status of implementation of the National Water Initiative to the Clean Energy Regulator as required under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Regulations 2011. ABARES will take on responsibility for monitoring water markets and producing an annual water markets report. The Bureau of Meteorology is working with state and territory governments and the water industry to continue the national performance reports for the urban water sector, which will provide an important annual snapshot of this section of the industry. The 2013-14 National Performance Report was released on 7 May 2015 by the bureau, and the states have committed to supporting an additional two years of the report at this time. I would like to reiterate that final point for the shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide, who is at the bench here: the Bureau of Meteorology has continued the production of the National Performance Report for the urban water industry, which provides an annual snapshot of the industry each year, and just this month they released the most recent, the 2013-14, report, and each state has committed to continuing to support this into the future. Contrary to the statements made by the member for Port Adelaide, we have not axed this important report, as he claimed here today. Whether it was ignorance, arrogance or a failure to do his job as the shadow minister and actually be on top of his own brief with the reports that are being put out, I find it abhorrent. I am confident that our approach will deliver a win-win for water reform. We will continue the key functions of monitoring the work on implementing the National Water Initiative, the work of undertaking the five-yearly assessments of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Productivity Commission and the Department of the Environment embody significant and respected expertise in the water reform area. I am confident that our nation will be in good hands with the Productivity Commission monitoring the progress of implementation of the National Water Initiative principles. Our farming communities, environmental communities, tourism communities and the community as a whole, as I have travelled the basin, have demanded certainty and integrity in the process. Despite reaching out to members opposite, we have had no cooperation. Yet when I talk to their state colleagues we receive good cooperation. When I have raised this with the various states there has not been any great reason for concern, because they understand the independence and the integrity of people like ABARES and the Productivity Commission in their ability to do their job. What we are seeing is opposition for opposition's sake. Even in the Senate, their senators on the crossbench understood the importance of doing this to save money, to make sure that the integrity was there in the reporting process. So, they understood, and with that support the bill passed the Senate. Tonight, here in this chamber, if Labor oppose this bill it shows again their total ignorance and arrogance towards members of regional farming communities who rely on water, the lifeblood of their community. As I said, the integrity lies with the referral of reporting to the Productivity Commission, to ABARES and to the department and of course the report from the Bureau of Meteorology. So, I propose that the question be put that this bill be now read a second time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The question is that this bill be now read a second time.   Bill read a second time.

The House divided. [18:09]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Vasta)

 78 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF 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 Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 49 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN King, CF Macklin, JL MacTiernan, AJGC Marles, RD McGowan, C Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Ryan, JC (teller) Snowdon, WE Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Third Reading 61 18:14 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 61

Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015

Second Reading 61 18:15 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland 'No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.' Those now infamous words were almost the last thing that Tony Abbott said to Australians before they headed to the polls to cast their vote in the 2013 election. He said it on SBS World News the night before the election. It was his last and final offer, a solemn promise—you make me Prime Minister and I promise you this: 'No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.' That was the deal. The Prime Minister was asking the people of Australia to trust him, to take him at his word, and they did. We now know what has happened since: more than $50 billion in cuts to health, $30 billion in cuts to education, cuts to the pension that have only been stopped because we stopped them in the Senate, changes to the GST in the last budget released a few weeks ago, and—surprise, surprise—cuts to the ABC and SBS—half billion dollars in cuts to the ABC and SBS. The people of Australia have learnt an important lesson—that is, you cannot trust what this Prime Minister says. He has now broken every single promise that he made in that interview on SBS World News the night before the election. This legislation is nothing more than an attempt to cover up one of those broken promises, the promise that there would be no cuts to the SBS. Last year in the budget the Prime Minister cut the budget of SBS by $53.7 million. The purpose of the legislation we are now debating is to allow SBS to put more ads on TV when people are watching to try to make up for some of those cuts. It is legislation based on a lie. Its objective is to help make up and cover up a broken promise, plain and simple. There may be good reasons to support some of the measures that are in this bill, but, if parliament passes it, it will be complicit in this broken promise, and that is why the opposition will not support this bill. The bill doubles the amount of advertising that SBS can broadcast between 6 pm and midnight every night. This will mean more ads during the shows that most people watch on SBS—more ads during SBS World News, more ads during Insight, more ads during Dateline, more ads during the football, more ads during the cycling and, in all likelihood, more programs designed to fit around ads rather than the other way around. Just like Channel 7, Channel 9 and Channel 10, between the hours of 6 pm and midnight SBS will be able to broadcast 10 minutes of ads and four minutes of promos per hour. The opposition have consulted widely on this bill and we have paid close attention to the submissions and the evidence presented to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, which is inquiring into this legislation. The committee has received 27 submissions. Two of those submissions are confidential. Two of those submissions support this bill; they are from SBS and FECCA. You can tell by reading them that they reluctantly support this bill. All of the other submissions—in the order of more than 90 per cent of the submissions to this inquiry—oppose this bill. This is what Free TV, who represent the commercial broadcasters, said in their submission: … the proposal to increase prime time advertising on the SBS equates to the introduction of a fourth commercial television broadcasting network by stealth. This is what Save Our SBS said during the public hearings: Despite a promise made the night before the 2013 election by Mr Abbott on SBS television directly to SBS audiences that there would be no cuts to SBS, the government has cut five per cent from SBS's budget over five years. Even SBS, in their submission, admit that this is a cut, stating: As a result of the Lewis Efficiency Study, Minister Turnbull announced further cuts to SBS’s funding in November 2014. Of the cuts, $25.2 million was based on back office efficiencies that SBS was already working towards. A further $28.5 million was predicated on successful legislative amendment to the SBS Act, which would provide SBS with additional advertising and sponsorship flexibility and allow SBS to deliver this portion of the funding cut via a modest annual revenue increase. The total funding cut of $53.7 million over five years from 2014-15 has already been reflected in SBS’s forward estimates. The most important evidence to the committee though was not from broadcasters or from peak groups but from the people who watch SBS, the people who love the shows and do not want their favourite shows interrupted by more ads. Here is one example from Kym Ambrose, who said: It will change the way SBS conducts itself and turn it into a commercial venture. We need to support this station not destroy it.   Here is another from Peter Maurice Wilkinson. He said: I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister declare just before the federal election, that, under his government there would be "No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or the SBS." I am writing to request that you hold the government accountable to their promises. Here is another Bridget Ikin: To see SBS eventually broadcasting 14 minutes per hour of disruptive commercial breaks (i.e. ads plus promos) is totally unacceptable. It’s starting to look a lot like any commercial channel! They are just a couple of quotes from a couple of the submissions to the committee, but there are 61,874 people like them—people who have signed this submission arguing that the parliament should oppose this legislation. The only people who really support this bill are the government themselves. The only reason they are doing this is that they lied to the Australian people and now they are trying to cover it up by getting somebody else to replace the money that they have ripped out of SBS. In November last year Bill Shorten asked the Prime Minister a question about this at this dispatch box. I remember it, as if it were yesterday. I remember what the Prime Minister said. He said: 'It was not a broken promise.' He said: 'It was not a cut.' He said it was an 'efficiency dividend'. I thought I was in the theatre of the absurd for a moment. Here is a Prime Minister who promised no cuts to SBS and then the budget cuts $53.7 million out of SBS. Then when asked whether he was prepared to admit that that was a cut, he refused to admit that it was a cut and calls it an efficiency dividend. The next day the Prime Minister's old friend, the Minister for Communications, was asked the same question on Sky TV. He did not give the same answer as the Prime Minister; he threw the Prime Minister under the bus. This is what he said when asked whether this was an efficiency dividend: It is not an efficiency dividend... This is not an efficiency dividend.... Certainly there are cuts. He said no cuts to the ABC or SBS. There are cuts to the ABC or SBS. Malcolm Turnbull, the Minister for Communications, told the truth, and it was a very different answer to what the Prime Minister had said the day before. I remember saying at the time that, if there is one thing that the Australian people hate more than politicians allowing, then that is politicians lying about lying. That is what the Prime Minister had done that day. The next day I asked the Prime Minister who was right: was it he who said it was an efficiency dividend or was it the Minister of Communications who said that it was not an efficiency dividend. The answer that the Prime Minister gave was: 'Well, it is effectively an efficiency dividend.' He was asked the question again in February this year, and finally he was prepared to answer the question truthfully. He admitted that it was cut and he admitted that it was a broken promise. He told us a little bit more—he told is what he really thinks of these cuts. This is what he said in answer to a question on 12 February this year: We have broken and, frankly, it is just as well that we did … That is what the Prime Minister really thinks of SBS—an organisation set up by a former Liberal Prime Minister and one of the key ingredients in what makes Australia the most successful multicultural country in the world. Not only has the Prime Minister broken his promise, but he is proud of it. 'Thank God we did!' That was his answer to a question in this House in February this year. Now he wants to put more ads on television to help pay for it. So how much would SBS make if this legislation were passed? Well, according to the government it is $28.5 million over four years, but, according to Free TV, that number is very different. They say it would be more like $147 million over four years. Both the government and Free TV have an interest in minimising or maximising that number. I take more seriously the number that is proposed by JP Morgan. Independent analysts at JP Morgan have looked at this as well, and their assessment is that the figure is somewhere between $88 million and $132 million over the forward estimates Whatever way you cut it, it is designed to cover up a cut. What is the impact, then, of this on SBS? Well, SBS has recently been in the news for a controversial TV program, Struggle Street, and members will know it well. It is a controversial television program that a lot of people watched. The argument that many make in their submissions to the parliamentary inquiry is that legislation like this which increases the number of ads that can be broadcast in prime time on SBS will only encourage SBS to produce more content that pulls in ratings and pulls in advertising dollars—in other words to be more like a commercial television network. There is some evidence for that. The government's own efficiency review of the ABC and SBS admits that is a risk. At page 85 of that review it argues that: … there will be greater pressure on SBS management to consider the trade-off of delivering on commercial expectations, against delivering those functions described in the SBS Charter. Even the government's own efficiency review points to this as a concern. It is a real concern. What about SBS viewers? The argument from the government and from the minister is that this will not mean more ads on SBS—SBS will still have a cap of 120 minutes a day for advertising. That may be right, but the fact is it will mean more ads when people are watching TV—more ads during prime time. Instead of ads being on in the middle of the night when most of us are asleep, those ads will be on when most of us are watching television between 6pm and midnight. The 61,000 people who signed this petition do not want more ads on TV when they are watching their favourite programs. I am pretty sure that most Australians do not want more ads on TV, either. And they also do not want their government to break their promises. The Prime Minister promised the night before the election 'no cuts to SBS. He should stick to that. It is as simple as that. The government should just do what they promised. They do not need to introduce and pass this legislation in order to fund SBS; all they need to do is keep their word. If the government seriously think that it is a good idea to cut the budget of SBS and to replace that funding by putting more ads on television during prime time, then they should take that to the next election, because the opposition will not help this Prime Minister to cover up another broken promise. 18:30 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015. I was interested in one of the comments made by the previous speaker, and that was that SBS puts ads on television in the middle of the night when no-one is watching. I can imagine that sales pitch to a potential advertiser: 'Have we got a deal for you! We're going to put your ads on in the middle of the night when no-one is watching; you can pay for these ads, but actually no-one is ever going to be watching them!' What a comment to make; that is just astounding. The interesting thing from the previous speaker, too, was again he is living in a different world—totally ignoring the billions of dollars in debt and deficit left by the previous Labor government, which he was very much a part of. That is the one thing that has been missing in much of the debate. SBS is the youngest of Australia's five free-to-air networks. It is a multicultural broadcaster specifically aimed at Australian citizens for whom English is not their native language. It was first announced in the late 1970s in Western Australia. Perth was added to the network in 1986; we had to wait awhile. Labor planned to merge SBS with ABC in 1987. That was one of the things that I noted as part of doing some work on this particular bill. Of course, SBS operates under a mixed funding model. While the majority of SBS's operating budget is funded by the Australian government, the remainder is drawn from SBS's commercial activities. It certainly would not be drawn too much from ads put on the middle of the night deliberately so that no-one would see them. I think that you would be struggling to sell that concept. Commercial activities include advertising and sponsorship, but not those put on at time when no-one is watching or no-one is going to pay to advertise. But, like all other areas of government, we have to deal with the facts. We have to deal with the financial situation left to us by Labor. We cannot pretend that the debt and deficit is not there. In 2014, the Department of Communications conducted an efficiency study to identify savings that could be made in the back-of-house operations of the ABC and SBS. Of course, in conducting the review, the government intended to dispel the myth from the other side of politics that savings can only be achieved by cutting programming or services. In spite of the comments from those opposite, the target was savings that could be made without reducing the resources available for programming. In 1990, SBS was originally given government approval to seek sponsorship funds for the telecast of the FIFA World Cup. That was the predecessor of SBS in this place. The study that was done in looking at targeting savings made without reducing resources available for programming identified an opportunity for SBS to earn additional advertising revenue without increasing the maximum amount of advertising that it was permitted to show over a 24-hour period. SBS currently has a strict limit of five minutes of advertising per hour, which is a maximum of 120 minutes of advertising shown each day. However, like all the commercial stations operating in Australia, SBS earns the majority of its advertising revenue during peak viewing times, which is completely contrary to what the member for Blaxland had to say. This includes the daily peak hours of 6 pm to 10 o'clock at night and when it broadcasts special events such as the recent soccer grand final, the Tour de France or the soccer world cup. We need to allow a more flexible approach, enabling greater advertising at times of better viewing numbers. This flexibility is essential. This bill will enable SBS to show up to 10 minutes of advertising per hour during higher rating programs to increase its overall advertising revenue, but allow it to stay within the daily overall limit of 120 minutes. The counterbalance will require SBS to schedule less advertising during other hours so that the 120-minute daily cap is not exceeded. Again, in spite of the comments we heard opposite, the 120-minute daily cap on advertising is still well below the 350 minutes per day that the commercial broadcasters can devote to advertising. Members should note that SBS has many programs, particularly sporting programs, which have natural breaks that are suitable for advertising well in excess of the five-minute limitation at present. We should also note, and it should not be forgotten, that it has been SBS's soccer coverage which brought the game to Australian prime time television for the first time. The FIFA World Cup telecasts have delivered the networks highest ever ratings. We also should note that SBS does not currently fill 100 per cent of the time that it has available for advertising across all channels and markets, particularly in the case of regional markets, where SBS is regularly unable to fill five minutes of advertising per hour per channel, even during peak evening viewing times when its higher rating programs are generally shown. In markets with insufficient demand, the additional flexibility afforded by the proposed measures is unlikely to result in significant change to the amount of advertising that SBS attracts. So the benefit of this is most likely in the metropolitan markets. The additional advertising revenue received by SBS is highly unlikely to have a material impact on the advertising revenue of the commercial broadcasting industry, totalling $3.8 billion in 2012-13 and $3.9 billion in 2013-14. In contrast, SBS revenue from advertising and sponsorship over the same period was just $58 million in 2012-13 and $73.4 million in 2013-14—a share of less than two per cent. The 2013-14 figure represents a peak due, as I said, to SBS's coverage of the 2014 FIFA World Cup. In a non-world cup year advertising revenue is less, at around $50 million to $60 million—around a 1.5 per cent share. It is anticipated that the SBS advertising measures will result in an increase in SBS's advertising revenue of around $28.5 million over four years from 2015-16. The ABC and SBS efficiency studies also identified an opportunity for SBS to earn additional revenue through the use of product placement. Product placement is well known and recognised in commercial television, especially in cooking and food programs and sporting programs, where a branded good is promoted within the show itself. It is the fee a company pays to have their products either used or displayed, essentially to convince the viewer, the potential customer, that the product is the choice of the show or the star or a character. However, it goes much further than this in movies and the wider media all the time. Product placement is widely used to earn additional revenue and subsidise the cost of content production. SBS currently broadcasts programs purchased from all over the world which already contain product placement. However, SBS does not use product placement in its own commissioned programs due to a lack of clarity in the Special Broadcasting Service Act regarding its use. Not all programs are suitable for product placement, but some are. This bill amends the SBS Act to specifically allow SBS to earn revenue through having product placement in its programming. It requires the SBS board to develop and publicise guidelines regarding the use of product placement, and to report on its use and earnings in the annual report. The same requirement exists in the SBS Act for the use of advertising and sponsorship announcements. In the short term, additional advertising revenue will be directed towards meeting the government's efficiency savings from 2015-16, and making minor technical amendments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and the principal SBS Act to provide consistency with other broadcasting legislation and to remove redundant provisions. The amendments involve the insertion of some broadcasting definitions and terms in the SBS Act to make it consistent with the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the ABC Act, and to reflect the SBS activities that are provided in the current converging digital environment. It also removes redundant definitions in the ABC and SBS acts about election periods. In addition, the bill repeals a range of provisions from communications portfolio legislation which are spent or otherwise unnecessary. Repealing unnecessary legislation within the communications portfolio will ensure regulation only remains in force for as long as it is actually needed, and that remaining legislation is easily accessible. This bill will give SBS an incentive to seek out new advertisers and advertising opportunities. It is important to note that SBS, being the multilingual and multicultural service in this space, is not just in entertainment. The information it broadcasts is critical. I can recall my own mother-in-law, who did not speak much English at all and certainly could not read English. For many years, until she was able to receive SBS programming, she often worried unnecessarily about, particularly, women's health issues. She would not necessarily believe the information that was given to her by her daughters or daughters-in-law, but when the information came by way of SBS and programs she could understand herself and hear for herself—when she received this information first hand—it was of immeasurable value to her, and to many other Italian women who lived in that community. It was information from an independent source, and it gave her information that she had not previously had access to. SBS, as we know, is a vehicle for wonderful understanding—a connection—between the many different groups in Australia. It comments and connects on cultures and beliefs, on generations and intergenerational issues, for interest groups and various language communities. Having seen it first hand in a small community like Harvey, I know there are many others around Australia for whom this is such an important service. Look at the SBS charter—it must really meet the communication needs of Australia's multicultural society, including ethnic, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and it must increase awareness of the contribution of diversity of cultures in the continuing development of Australian society. These are very worthy parts of its charter, particularly in the current environment, that promote understanding and acceptance of the cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity of the Australian people. In facing some of the national security challenges that we do, that understanding and that acceptance of cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity are probably more important now than they have been—but for far different reasons. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House. 18:43 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I am opposed to the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 because it is based on a lie. The last thing Australians want is more advertising on free-to-air TV. The last thing that Australians want when they sit down in the evening is more advertising whilst they are watching television. If this bill proceeds it will diminish the quality of viewing for Australians when they are watching the Special Broadcasting Service. This is yet another lie from the Abbott government. We all remember the now infamous interview that the Prime Minister gave on the eve of the last federal election when he gave an ironclad guarantee, a commitment: no cuts to the SBS or the ABC. The pre-election interview was astonishing for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was during that interview that the Prime Minister professed no intention to make significant or damaging cuts to the SBS. That is what he said, and here we are, still fighting to do the impossible: hold the Prime Minister to his word, hold the Prime Minister to the commitment he made to the Australian people on the eve of the last election. What is even more shocking, even more striking and revealing, about the promise that was made was that he actually made it whilst appearing on the SBS. It was on an SBS program that the Prime Minister said there would be 'no cuts to the ABC or SBS'! You couldn't script this stuff—the irony. The irony of the bill that we are debating at the moment is that the commitment given by the Prime Minister prior to the last election that there would be no cuts to the SBS was given on an SBS news program. The deceptiveness of this Prime Minister is spellbinding, and it is contained in that commitment given on election eve. Since then, we all know what has occurred. The government brought down its 2014-15 budget, featuring $53.7 million worth of cuts over five years to the SBS, $25.2 million of which was direct cuts. A further $28.5 million was cut on the basis of allowing SBS to alternatively raise revenue through legislative amendment to its advertising restrictions. That is the subject of the bill before the House this evening. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to allow the SBS to increase its revenue base through more flexibility in the scheduling of advertisements and to earn additional revenue through the use of product placement in its commissioned programming. The bill also makes minor technical amendments and changes to the SBS Act and the ABC Act to provide consistency with the Broadcasting Services Act and to repeal redundant provisions in both of these acts. The SBS has restrictions on the amount of advertising that can be undertaken, in minutes per hour. Currently, there is a five-minute limit; five minutes per hour is the amount of time that ads can be shown during SBS programs. That equates to a maximum of 120 minutes of advertising being shown per day. This bill will amend the SBS Act to enable SBS to show up to 10 minutes of advertising per hour. In effect, it is doubling the amount of advertising per hour that the SBS can undertake during its programming, doubling the amount of advertising that Australians will see on one of our most popular free-to-air channels. This will allow SBS to schedule up to 10 minutes of ads during high-rating programs while scheduling less advertising during other hours so that the 120-minute daily cap is not exceeded. Translation: Tony Abbott's broken promise with regard to the SBS will result in more advertising during programs that more Australians like to watch on the SBS—programs such as Struggle Street, which has been very popular over recent weeks, and Eurovision, which was very popular. You are going to see more advertising whilst watching popular programs like that on the SBS. I would argue that the last thing Australians want to see whilst watching the SBS is more advertising. More advertising is in no-one's interest. It is actually the antithesis of the objective for which SBS was established: to provide a multicultural broadcasting service that is easily accessible and in multilingual platforms for the Australian public. In that respect, the SBS has a vital role to play in the Australian media and social landscape. The SBS was established in 1978. It has grown to feature five television channels—SBS ONE, SBS2, NITV, World Movies and Studio—and five radio networks—SBS Radio 1, Radio 2 and Radio 3, SBS Chill and SBS PopAsia. SBS online is also home to SBS On Demand video-streaming services. I am fortunate to represent a multicultural community, and I know how popular the SBS radio programs in particular are in the multicultural communities in my areas. NITV has an especially strong following in the electorate of Kingsford Smith, where I am honoured to have quite an active and participatory Aboriginal community that has produced some of our nation's best and most talented sportspeople and entertainers. NITV has some great sports programs and other artistic and cultural programs, and I acknowledge the importance of this channel and this service to the people of our electorate. And I pay tribute to everyone who works at NITV. I know that there are members of our community in Kingsford Smith who are employed by and who love working for NITV because of the importance of its service to the local community. The stated purpose of SBS is: … to provide multilingual and multicultural radio, television and digital media services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians and, in doing so, reflect Australia's multicultural society. Of course, one of Australia's great strengths and proudest features is our multicultural makeup. That being the case, SBS, like the ABC, is part of Australia's identity. Indeed, for decades, it has shaped the way we see ourselves as Australians. Sadly, this government's funding cuts have affected the operations of SBS; and, in planning for its future, earlier this month SBS pulled out of digital television service Freeview. Addressing the move, the SBS spokesperson who made the statement said: Last year, SBS's funding was cut by the federal government by $53.7 million over the next five years. As an organisation which is already lean and efficient, SBS has sought to find further efficiencies to absorb this cut, focusing on back-office measures in order to protect SBS's unique content offering for Australian audiences … That is the view of SBS management, pointing to the fact that, because of budget cuts, the team that manage the SBS have had to find savings through some of their content. As a result, sources told The Australian newspaper, SBS was likely to lose its place in Freeview's high-profile marketing campaigns. This is a direct result of the Abbott government's budget cuts affecting the Special Broadcasting Service, which is near and dear to the hearts of many, particularly in multicultural communities throughout Australia. It will affect programming and it will affect the viewing quality for those people who use this important service. Again, these are cuts that the Prime Minister promised would never happen. He gave that commitment to the Australian public on SBS TV on the eve of the election. It is a great shame that, this week of all weeks, Labor is fighting to defend the SBS from the Abbott government's axe, particularly after the broadcaster's highly successful weekend. I refer of course to the wonderful Eurovision broadcast on the weekend. I went out for a jog early on Sunday morning and I came home to see my wife and two daughters glued to the television screen. I asked what was going on and I was quickly told to shush up because the voting on Eurovision was taking place. Not only in my household but in many other Australian households, people were glued to SBS seeing what was going on in the Eurovision Song Contest. For over 25 years, SBS has been delivering this wonderfully wacky and popular song contest. Its popularity, I think, can be attributed to the fact that Australians are a proud multicultural community and many of our migrants come from many of the nations that are strong participants in the Eurovision Song Contest—populations such as the Greeks, Turkish, Italians, Irish, Serbians, Maltese, British and the like. SBS has made sure that these communities can still enjoy having the cultural juggernaut that is the Eurovision Song Contest delivering a wonderful sense of nostalgia and entertainment. This year the strength of that connection with the Australian people paid off big time, with Australia's participation in the Eurovision Song Contest for the first time ever. I must say that it was good to see a Maroubra boy, Guy Sebastian, representing Australia in the Eurovision Song Contest. He did us very proud, placing fifth in the voting despite his rookie status. Over 4.2 million Australians tuned in to watch for at least five minutes the Eurovision semi-finals and the grand final on the weekend. Eurovision provides a shining example of what SBS is capable of, particularly when it is supporting and celebrating Australia's multiculturalism and international interests. SBS provides wonderful content for the Australian community. It's multicultural affairs programming and also its news and entertainment broadcasts are very popular. It provides good quality documentary content that analyses and probes particular issues that are important to Australian society. All of that is being undermined by this government's shameful attack on the Special Broadcasting Service, by this government's misrepresentation of the facts, by this government's breach of its commitment to the Australian public which was delivered by none other than the Prime Minister on none other than SBS on the eve of the last election. It is shameful that this bill is before the parliament. It is a reform that is based on a lie. It will diminish the quality of viewing. As I said at the outset, the last thing Australians want is more ads on free-to-air television in this country, but that is exactly what they are going to get if this bill passes the parliament. 18:56 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise today to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015, an important subject in my electorate of Durack with its diverse population of 90,000-odd spread across 1.6 million square kilometres, the biggest and most remote electorate in Australia and the second biggest electorate in the world. SBS, with its multicultural television program offering, provides a very valuable service to the people of Durack and, indeed, the people of Australia. The bill proposes changes to SBS in terms of advertising, product placement and revenue opportunities for SBS. It includes measures that provide SBS with increased flexibility on the scheduling of advertising and clarifies SBS's ability to earn revenue through product placement during programming. It does not change the current restrictions on the overall amount of advertising—120 minutes per 24 hours. Importantly, this does not represent the commercialisation of SBS. SBS currently has a limit of five minutes of advertising per hour, adding up to 120 minutes a day. Like other broadcasters, SBS earns the majority of its advertising revenue during peak viewing times between 6 pm and midnight or when broadcasting special quality events such as Eurovision, about which we have just heard in great detail. This bill would enable SBS to schedule up to 10 minutes of advertising at higher rating times and less at slower times during lower rating programs. The 120 minute daily cap remains unchanged, as opposed to the 350 minutes per day that commercial broadcasters can allocate to advertising and revenue generation. Like advertising, product placement—such as perhaps wearing a West wetsuit or showing someone drinking a glass of exquisite Leeuwin Chardonnay—earns revenue and subsidises the cost of actually making television programs. With more flexibility of product placement, SBS could increase its earnings—in particular, during the broadcasting of popular cooking programs. Currently SBS acquires programs for broadcast which contain product placement. However, this placement has been made by and for third parties well before SBS has considered acquiring and broadcasting the program.   Due to the ambiguity currently in the SBS Act, SBS does not currently use product placement in its own commissioned programs. Obviously, this needs to be changed, and we need to create a level playing field. Accordingly, the bill amends the SBS Act to specifically allow SBS to earn revenue through having product placement in its own programming. I welcome this. The new measures will inevitably lead to an increase of approximately $28.5 million in SBS's advertising revenue over four years from 2015-16. This, of course, is against the backdrop of a reduction of funding to SBS of some $50 million. Opposition to the amendments that I have been speaking about are of course to be expected. It is the way of the commercial world and the way of those opposite as well, but I make this next point very strongly. Let's consider 2013-14, which was the World Cup year with higher-than-normal ratings. SBS earned some $73 million in revenue from advertising and sponsorship while the commercial networks earned $3.9 billion. This represents a share of less than two per cent. This means that, when the proposed amendments become law, even if SBS's revenue growth were at the expense of commercial broadcasters, it would constitute a minimal impact on their overall revenue. I refer to the submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee regarding the amendments we are discussing here today. This submission was made by the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia, also known as FECCA. Not surprisingly, FECCA has expressed its disappointment over the funding reduction; but, notwithstanding the budget cuts, FECCA still supports this bill—specifically schedule 1, which provides SBS with its advertising flexibility. In supporting the bill FECCA notes that the change will not increase the daily advertising limit of 120 minutes currently permitted but will potentially lead to that $28 million that I referred to earlier in net incremental revenue opportunities up to 2018-19. FECCA believes that the additional advertising revenue is necessary to ensure the role of SBS in supporting multicultural communities is not diminished. The proposed amendments must be debated in the context of their value to society as a whole. Australia, as we know, is a multicultural society, and SBS was created to service our population by providing appropriate cultural and linguistic broadcasting services. Nothing has changed. Australia remains proudly and fiercely multicultural. Remember: with the exception of Australian Aboriginals, we are all migrants in this country. Australian people have been drawn predominantly from the people of other nations and have built a great nation. As a nation of migrants, we celebrate our origins in numerous ways, from festivals to Australia Day and Harmony day, and, of course, in food, entertainment, history and also heritage. We collectively rejoice in our uniqueness and the hard work of our migrants, who have created this nation and our have-a-go approach to life. Last year, new Australian citizens were drawn from more than 150 countries, and we proudly claim to the world and to our own to be one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world with our rich mix of colour, flavour and movement. As a community, as the parliament, as a nation and as the member for Durack, we are all very proud of the bipartisan support for multiculturalism in Australia. In my remote and rural electorate of Durack we have at least 160 different countries represented. Seventy-two per cent were born in Australia, with the balance born in places as diverse as Vietnam, Yemen, South Sudan, Monaco, Greenland, Mexico and Botswana. More commonly, though, you will not be surprised that they were born predominantly in England, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Africa, India, Germany and Ireland. We all know of the high value of SBS to our constituents. Indeed, I am also a fan of SBS and its diverse program offerings that reflect the culture of my friends, neighbours and constituents in Durack. As we continue to debate the amendments to this bill let us give heed to the fact that SBS provides us a much-needed quality service, from education in news to education in current affairs to the Australian population, not only for our ethnic brothers and sisters. Yes, it is a service, and, like all services, it is one that my government is proud to support. The Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 includes measures that provide SBS with increased flexibility in the scheduling of advertising and clarifies SBS's ability to earn revenue through product placement during programming. In the interest of long-term sustainability SBS must be allowed to move with the times, change, find ways to generate more income and provide a service for our Australian multicultural groups. It is all about balance—balancing the imperatives of commercial TV with the requirements of a special broadcasting service. Now more than ever SBS has an important role to encourage and promote tolerance, understanding and acceptance of multicultural Australia. It must be sustainable and is important to be here for the long haul. On that basis, I recommend this bill to the House. 19:06 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I also rise tonight to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015. On this side, as previously indicated, we do have many concerns and oppose this bill. We have concerns about SBS being essentially forced to have to increase their advertising due to the fact that there are so many severe budgetary cuts brought in by the Abbott government. This bill will essentially change the fundamental purpose of SBS. Let's have a look at the bill itself. The government is amending the SBS Act in two key ways—firstly by increasing its potential revenue base by creating a so-called 'more flexible' scheduling of advertisements. This would mean allowing for an increase in the amount of advertising that can be shown on SBS in prime time, which is, of course, between 6 pm and midnight. That is an increase from five minutes per hour to 10 minutes per hour. This would be within the existing limit of no more than 120 minutes of advertising in any 24-hour period.   Secondly, this bill amends the SBS Act to specifically authorise SBS to earn revenue through product placement in its commissioned programs, including food or sports programs. This would then allow for additional earnings through the use of product placement endorsements in its commissioned programming. Also, the SBS Act's definition of 'advertisements' has been changed to allow the use of product placement. Whilst schedule 1 does not define 'product placement', item 3 specifically authorises SBS to broadcast product placements and to include product placement in its digital services. SBS will also be required to develop publicly available guidelines on the kinds of advertisements and sponsorship announcements it is prepared to broadcast. It will also need to address the kind of product placement it is prepared to include in the programs that it broadcasts. The act which established SBS programs and corporation had already allowed for the introduction of advertisements. Up until 2006, advertisements were noninvasive or were allowed before and after programs or during what were labelled 'natural program breaks'. The advertisement times were strictly limited to five minutes per hour and did not include station promotional material. Since 2006, the SBS management has interpreted 'natural program breaks' to encompass breaks which are designed to occur within scheduled programming. As I stated before, SBS is currently permitted to broadcast only 120 minutes of advertising and sponsorship announcements within a 24-hour period. The government would have us believe that all these new changes they have brought in are necessary to ensure SBS becomes more self-sufficient and less dependent upon Commonwealth funding in order to maintain current service levels. But, indeed, like all things this government do, this action is in fact quite misleading. It is meant to disguise their ideologically driven attack against public broadcasters. The fact is that these changes are occurring due to the cuts to SBS. The deep cuts imposed on this organisation are cruel and unjust. Many concerns have been raised in relation to these cuts. Commercial broadcasters have made claims—and rightly so—that by allowing and, indeed, compelling SBS to engage in the pursuit of advertising dollars it will effectively transform SBS into a fourth commercial broadcaster. This means it would cease to be a public broadcaster, of course, free from the associated constraints and commercial realities. Others further argue that by compelling SBS—a public broadcaster—to compete in a finite revenue pool it effectively would result in a subsidy from them to administer what is essentially supposed to be a public asset. Those who maintain that the SBS and ABC as public broadcasters should be free from the reality of advertisements also argue that the proposed changes would limit their ability to operate within their charters. That is what they need to be doing—operating within their charters. SBS's charter clearly directs SBS to promote and contribute to the diversity that is multicultural Australia. We do not need to have SBS in the position where they are essentially forced to be second-guessing what their commercial partners may prefer. Rather, they should be focused on programming that specifically delivers upon their obligation. Moreover, as a result of the proposed changes, the broadcaster could possibly be forced to be in the position to be more inclined to place the needs of advertisers before the needs of viewers. Thus, programming could potentially be assessed on its ability to raise revenue, not on its potential to deliver on charter obligations, which should be the primary objective of SBS. All these changes are occurring due to the Abbott government's breaking of its election commitment. We all remember the night before the election when the Prime Minister, who was actually looking straight down the lens of the SBS camera, said the words that there would be no cuts to the ABC and no cuts to the SBS. Clearly this was untrue. That is exactly what happened; there were cuts to both, as well as cuts to many other areas that we have spoken about in this place many times. On budget night last year the government cut more than half a billion dollars out of the ABC and SBS. They were very harsh cuts. This year's budget papers have revealed the extent of those cuts and how wide-ranging they are. There it was in black and white in those papers—some 215 ABC and SBS employees have lost their jobs because of the government's cruel and unjust cuts. Despite those previous false claims from the Prime Minister of no cuts to SBS, the Abbott government in their 2014-15 budget also included a funding cut of $53.7 million over five years for SBS. That is a huge cut, indeed. $25.2 million of these cuts were direct to the organisation. SBS have, of course, been forced to comply with these cruel cuts. They had to streamline many of their back office functions, which we all know means redundancies. That was the reality. A further $28.5million was cut on the basis of allowing SBS to alternatively raise the revenue. In other words, they were told, 'Forget about your core business. You will now have to compete against commercial providers and raise income to cover what this cruel government has taken away from you.' All of these changes are subject to the legislative amendment to SBS's advertising restrictions being passed. The Minister for Communications has made it clear that if the bill does not pass then SBS are on their own and will not receiving any additional funding. SBS have confirmed the position they will be put in by this bill. They will be forced to make up for this funding cut through further slashing of jobs and services from within the organisation. The SBS submission to a Senate inquiry on this bill states that SBS would be left with very few options to achieve further savings outside of SBS programming. At the inquiry, many senators and members raised concerns which focused on their fears that this bill will increase the amount of time allocated to advertising on SBS. Fortunately, at least at this stage, that is not the case. The number of minutes SBS are allowed to allocate to advertising and sponsorship announcements will not change under the proposals in this bill. There will, however, be more advertising shown in peak viewing periods. Many people have concerns about that. As we know, SBS play such an important role in Australian life today. They stand at the forefront of so many great initiatives. Much of the programming they provide is thought-provoking and sometimes very edging sometimes viewing, which creates such a great difference. SBS also create such an important format for ethnic communities, both providing a valuable way to communicate with specific groups and providing a way to greatly expose and enlighten the general community within Australia to many different aspects of our wonderful multicultural society. It is these great aspects of SBS that we should continue to celebrate and nurture, not cut further. We have such great provision of informative multicultural programming, very in-depth news stories and great content that really does showcase the great diversity of our modern Australian community. Labor is very mindful of the industry feedback which points out the need for caution so as to not turn SBS into just another commercial broadcaster. Labor believes that, as a public broadcaster, SBS needs to be driven by a purpose more important than profit. We believe they need to have the capacity to fulfil their charter, and that should be their primary obligation. We are concerned that, if this bill were to pass, the scales would be tipped too far in favour of profit over the public benefit—the massive public benefit—that can be maintained by ensuring that SBS is kept essentially as a public broadcaster and is kept in the position of adhering to their charter and their responsibilities and the obligations that come with that. This bill, as it currently stands, is really a recipe for more ads during the most popular shows on SBS. That is the commercial reality of what will happen in those prime time periods and very popular shows that will be on. The reality is that there will be a whole lot more advertising during that time on SBS. That is, in fact, what will happen. Indeed, there has been a large outcry right across the community in relation to this bill and some of the impacts upon SBS. Some consumer groups, particularly Save Our SBS and GetUp, are very strongly opposed to this bill, and they have made those concerns very well known. It is evident by the collection of more than 61,000 signatures on a petition calling on the parliament to oppose the bill, and I know that concern is spread right throughout the community. Indeed, in my area too I receive a lot of feedback and concern about cuts to SBS and about cuts to ABC as well. The main tenet of the argument put forward by groups such as the ones I mentioned—Save Our SBS and GetUp—is that further commercialisation of the SBS would undermine the ability of SBS to adhere to its charter responsibility, which is to: … educate and entertain all Australians … Effectively, what will happen is that we will see the creation of a fourth commercial network by stealth, if you like. That, as I say, is a concern expressed not just by those groups but, indeed, by thousands and thousands of people who have signed those petitions. In fact, Save Our SBS argues that the bill's intent is to increase dependence on advertising and may lead to SBS being forced to adopt a more populist approach to their broadcasting. Save Our SBS also cites some internal studies that were undertaken both in 2008 and 2013 in support of its claim that they would adopt a more populist stance. They would indeed be forced to adopt a more populist stance because the increase in prime time ads could lead to deficiencies in the delivery of their charter, according to all the studies that I cited before. The studies further state what many already believe to be the obvious consequence. The reality is advertisers will want and, in fact, demand access to what is one of SBS's most valuable commodities, the very loyal audiences. They will have very high viewing audiences, and it is those that advertisers want to be able to access in prime time in those very important shows due to the very widespread respect that people have for SBS and their programming. In Save Our SBS's view, when advertising was between programs only, they viewed that the viewer was more important. Their concern is that now, with these proposed changes, the scales will tip in favour of the advertising client and they will become the priority. It will not necessarily be the viewer, who should be at the heart of all the decision making. It should not be driven necessarily by what the advertisers may be wanting or may require. As I have said, studies into in-program advertising agree with the assessment that it has made it increasingly difficult for SBS to meet its charter obligations as a result of an increase of this advertising just by the natural conflict that it does create. The proposed changes in this bill could, therefore, have a detrimental impact on the very integrity of the SBS, placing the needs of advertisers before the needs of viewers, as programming could be assessed potentially on its ability to raise revenue and not so much on its ability to meet the charter or upon its ability to reflect the needs or wishes of the communities that they endeavour to represent. It may mean you will not have the great diversity of programming or the thoughtful, provoking programs that we see on SBS that I think all of us would know can challenge us and entertain us, and we would not want to see that in any way sacrificed for other agendas. In a sense, seeing SBS just becoming another commercial provider would indeed be quite detrimental. It is a concern to see these cuts. This year's budget really is a statement of, if you like, a recommitment of last year's budget, in terms of its cuts and the impact of those cuts. We have seen them across so many areas. As I have said before, we saw the now Prime Minister saying before the last election there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS, and that is precisely what we have seen. So it is a broken promise, and it is one that many people are very concerned about in regional areas as well. They see that reflected as the responsibility of the National Party. I know ABC and SBS are important everywhere, but they are very important in regional and rural areas, and people are very, very concerned about any cuts—potential and real cuts like we are seeing. As I am concluding, we should never forget the Prime Minister's statement before the last election when he said: No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS. Yet that is exactly what we have seen. It is the Abbott government's dishonesty and incompetence that continues to hurt Australian families. Many families that did rely, firstly, on jobs generated by our great public broadcasters have been impacted. But our broader community has been impacted by the very unfair and unjust cuts to ABC and to SBS, two great institutions that this government promised not to cut. Yet, in government, that is precisely what they did, and I know that many people in regional areas certainly condemn the Abbott government for those cuts. It has been very harsh and it has meant their access to services has decreased. I certainly call on the government to reverse these very harsh cuts. 19:21 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks It is good to have the opportunity to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015. The changes proposed in this bill take place not in a bubble but the broader context of the economic situation that the government faces, particularly the budgetary situation that the government faces. The reality is that all aspects of government have been affected by the appalling legacy of debt that was left behind by the previous, incompetent Labor administration. Left untouched, the trajectory of government debt under the previous regime was heading towards $667 billion. The numbers get so big that they become difficult to conceptualise, but that is two-thirds of a trillion dollars—that is, 'trillion' with a 't'. That is where things were headed under the previous government. We do need to reflect on that because this, like all legislation, occurs within a context of the absolute need for budget repair. One of the reasons things got so bad under the previous government was that, even when they projected they would spend more in a particular year, they spent even more again. The projection would have said: 'Well, actually, spending is going to go up quite a lot next year'; but then, not only did they spend the extra money they said they were going to spend, they spent more on top of that. It happened basically every year under the previous Labor government. In 2009-10 they spent $1 billion more than they said they would in their budget. In 2012-13 they spent $6.3 billion more—the actuals versus the budget. If you are a business and you say, 'Our costs this year are going to be $1 million', and it turns out they are maybe $1.2 million or $1.3 million, that is a big problem—as it has been for Australia. In 2011-12 they spent $11.9 billion more than the large amount that they projected to spend. In 2008-09 they spent $32.1 billion more than they themselves projected in their budget. This is the type of administration that the Australian people rightly rejected. The Australian people reflected on a whole range of things that went wrong from a financial perspective during the last term of government. Speaking, as we are today, broadly about the communications area, one of the things on which the Australian people reflected was the absolute monstrosity that was the management of the NBN under the previous Labor government. You would recall the stories—the breathless, short conversations taking place in various plane trips around the country as the former minister for communications sought an audience with the then Prime Minister. He was very difficult to find. The conversations were very short, but they had lasting and dramatic negative consequences. What happened under the previous government in regard to the administration and planning of the NBN will be remembered in Australian history as one of the worst examples of rank economic mismanagement that our nation has ever seen. To purport to commit tens of billions of dollars of spending literally on the back of a couple of coasters is something that should never be forgotten. I am sure when historians reflect on the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years no area will be more symptomatic of the failure and incompetence than that one. You would remember that the NBN was going to cost a total of $10 billion, but only $4.7 billion of that would be borne by taxpayers because private investors were going to come in and buy or invest in the rest of it. That did not happen. It was then going to cost $43 billion, and again private investors were going to come in and buy 49 per cent of it. That did not happen either. Private investors sort of said: 'Okay, well, you have some projections. How's this thing going to make money?' When they examined the reality, they found that there was really nothing under the bonnet in terms of the substantive work that needs to be done when you are contemplating even a small investment let alone tens of billions of dollars. The review that was commissioned late in 2013 found that the NBN was going to cost $73 billion, 100 per cent of which would have been borne by the taxpayer. Just extraordinary. This was something that was committed to, without detailed work being done, on the basis of a couple of verbal conversations while flying around the country, at the level of the highest office in the land. We should always remember that, because it really does reflect very accurately and indeed very poorly on the previous government. We do have a difficult budget context, because so many bad decisions were made. It is interesting to look at the proposals of the current opposition. You would have thought that, having gone through that very difficult six-year period—we will learn more about that period in an upcoming ABC documentary—some sort of internal analysis, a bit of reflection, might have been called for and that might have resulted in a more prudent and modest approach to planning in the future—certainly, to at least do your numbers. We had a very curious situation recently, just in the last two weeks, when the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech made the commitment that $100,000 degrees in what is known as STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—would be HECS-free. That was all part of the opposition leader's plan to position himself as something of a champion of the modern economy, which is absurd based on the previous government's record. The calculation is pretty simple. You have $100,000 degrees. How much is the average HECS debt for a STEM student? You multiply $100,000 times the debt, and you get the amount. That is it. It is not that complex. You would think that it would have been quite easy to come into this chamber with a very clear understanding. But what in fact happened, curiously, was that on budget night the cost was estimated by the opposition to be about $300 million. At some point, somehow, and do not ask me for the detailed backstory on this, it became $45 million. It was only going to cost $45 million. Then the next day it was over $1 billion. We obviously had to cost this policy, and it turns out that it is $2.25 billion. The average cost of a STEM degree is about $22½ thousand in HECS. If you multiply that by $100,000, it is $2.25 billion. It is really quite a simple calculation. This is really quite extraordinary and demonstrates that no lessons have been learnt by the other side. The opposition leader wants to be perceived as a forward-thinking investor in technology with the start-up investment fund he bravely announced. As the Minister for Communications said earlier, the notion that an opposition with no business experience and no personal understanding of the technology sector could lead a technology boom in this country is really quite absurd. You will recall Kevin Rudd with a laptop in 2007—this time it is the opposition leader clutching some convertible notes. In both cases, it is a very unimpressive spectacle. We do have problems with the budgetary situation. One of Labor's proposals is to tax the hardworking people who have saved diligently for their retirement through the superannuation system. That is a bad plan. It will affect more than 100,000 people and do very little for the budget. It will punish people who have done the hard yards and saved for retirement—in many cases, over 40 or 50 years. Under Labor, costs were running at about 3.6 per cent a year above inflation. That is an unsustainably high level. What we have done is bring that down to about 1.5 per cent per year above inflation. So obviously, in order to effectively stand still, government spending would have to keep pace with inflation. Our budget proposes about 1.5 per cent above inflation. Government spending under our budget does increase but it increases at a markedly more modest rate than we saw under the previous government. That is entirely appropriate, because we are not here to spend people's money on a whim. We are not here to throw it around like it is ours—it is not. We must always remember that taxation is paid not voluntarily but through the force of law, and there are significant penalties for people who do not pay their taxes. We are saying, in taking that tax revenue, we have a very solemn obligation to spend it as sensibly as possible and as modestly as possible. This government is very committed to that. Part of this broader picture is the area of communications. There are many public broadcasters around the world that have some form of advertising on their schedules. Channel 4 in the UK is a well-known public broadcaster. About 84 per cent of its revenue came from advertising, in 2011. CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has had no restraints on advertising since 2009. So the government believes it is sensible, in an environment of difficult economic circumstances, to enable SBS to have a further limited capacity to take on advertising. The increase in the capacity of SBS to take advertising, particularly around prime time, will enable it to generate some modest additional revenue. We believe this is sensible in the context of a very difficult budget position—which has been created entirely by those opposite. As we reflect on SBS and the change in its rules related to advertising it is appropriate to think about the broader context in which this is occurring, which is the significant change in the television industry itself. I used to work in TV for quite a few years and have some understanding of the industry. It is an industry that is undergoing immense change. We had a situation, until very recently, where the only way you could get a moving picture into a home was through broadcast spectrum. Broadcast spectrum is parts of the air that are conducive to sending out a broadcast signal. That was an incredibly compelling business opportunity, because people wanted to watch moving pictures in the home and no-one could do it other than through free-to-air broadcasters. The compact reached between the broadcasters and government of the day was that they would pay for that special privilege through licence fees. Licence fees are levied as a proportion of revenue. Historically, in Australia, the rate was very high—around nine per cent of total revenue was paid in licence fees. In recent years those numbers have reduced. It varies from broadcaster to broadcaster but is around 4½ per cent; it has approximately halved. That was done by the previous government to reflect the changing circumstances, the fact that the free-to-air television industry had given up a large amount of broadcast spectrum—to be used for other purposes—which could then be sold. Indeed, they have been subsequently. As we look at the changing media industry—we see the launch of subscription video-on-demand services; we see the proliferation of literally hundreds of thousands of sources of online video—it is an argument to look at the regime that governs the free-to-air industry, just as we have looked earnestly at SBS and the package of measures before the House today. It is appropriate to look more broadly, to consider whether or not the regulatory regime that we have in place in free-to-air television is entirely appropriate or could be updated. And it is appropriate to consider arguments related to license fees and other issues, in that context. This legislation is important. It helps to repair the budget and I commend it to the House. 19:36 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley There is only one reason why we are considering the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 tonight, and that is that, on election eve, in a range of commitments that were given by the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, with hand on heart about what would happen, designed to influence the way the people voted at the election, a commitment was made that there would be no cuts to the SBS. Knowing that there was a strong level of support within the community for public broadcasting, the Prime Minister went out of his way, repeatedly, to indicate that there would be no cuts to funding. Subsequent to that, he got into office and, as we have seen since the 2013 election, all the commitments that were made—and support was secured off the back of those commitments—were trashed. We had a situation where the public broadcasters were to lose funding. This is an attempt to try and make up for that. While the coalition dresses this up as an efficiency dividend, it is clear that it is a cut, and the public broadcasters have no choice but to attempt to do these types of things to secure more advertising in an attempt to make up for funds lost. Financial pressure is exerted on them by the coalition, which many people know in their heart of hearts does not support public broadcasters, because, for quite some time, it has maintained a position—that is unsubstantiated—that the public broadcasters are completely anti-coalition. As a result, the public broadcasters face this type of punishment, through lower funding, greater pressure on their operations and therefore less capacity for them to undertake the type of broadcasting that the coalition believes is against its political interests—which is complete and utter rubbish. So we have this bill. Labor has already indicated that it is against the proposed amendments to the SBS Act because these changes are a covert attempt by the Prime Minister to force SBS to run more advertising to earn money, at the same time as he is cutting its budget, in clear breach of an election promise. These amendments are a blatant attempt by the government to turn SBS into another commercial broadcaster, bearing in mind that commercial broadcasters are already under financial pressure of their own. But the coalition intends to turn SBS into a commercial broadcaster instead of letting it focus on its main objectives, one of which is to effectively be the country's main multicultural broadcaster. People in my area have developed a particular view about SBS, and rightly so. SBS has not endeared itself to Western Sydney, and in particular the areas of Western Sydney that I represent in this place. In fact, its actions over the last few weeks, with specific reference to a particular program, Struggle Street, have done nothing to engender support for SBS. If anything, they have turned the views of the people that I represent in this place quite against SBS, and rightly so. In its own charter, SBS's key objectives are to promote diversity in Australia and contribute to the understanding and acceptance of cultural, ethnic and socioeconomic diversity within the broader community. Like many others who valued SBS growing up, I certainly operated on the belief that this public broadcaster would offer a chance to broaden public perspective, that it would generate better appreciation of the challenges and demands of others in the community but not do so in a way that demeans or denigrates. Recently, SBS did just that. It engaged in questionable methods in its filming and production procedures when producing the show that I have referenced, Struggle Street. It targeted a number of families within the electorate of Chifley. Many constituents have contacted me say—and they are right to say this—that the show reinforces improper, unfair stereotypes of the people living in this part of Western Sydney. But the biggest problem with the show is the ethical missteps that occurred by SBS and the production company, KEO Films. I want to focus in particular on one of the biggest ethical issues that stood out to me, which is the issue of consent. It became apparent that the people featured in this program by SBS did not give informed consent to be featured in this television program. It raises serious questions about how SBS and KEO Films went through the process of obtaining consent. These were experienced filmmakers and TV broadcasters dealing with inexperienced and vulnerable participants—participants who were not provided with copies of the release forms once they were signed, participants who were not offered independent legal advice before consenting to be filmed. These issues are most serious, especially in the context of filming underage children and people with diminished capacity or disability. Out of the 11 people that the first episode focused on, one person is said to be suffering from cognitive impairment that causes periods of confusion and anxiety. Another was depicted to be frequently under the influence of the drug ice and had several scenes related to their drug use. One person suffered permanent brain damage from a motorcycle accident. Many more participants were depicted to be habitual drug users and frequently under the influence. Serious questions could legitimately be raised about the capacity of these people to give simple consent, much less informed consent. Brain damage and mental illness do not preclude a person from being informed about their rights or being able to advocate for their own needs. But their inclusion in a television show, particularly one of this nature, calls for a much more rigorous approach to consent than simply getting these people's signatures on forms. Consent is the cornerstone of journalistic professional ethics, and it was simply breached here. Since SBS and KEO Films seemingly skirt serious ethical issues, I fail to see how this program is in line with the SBS charter or its principal functions and duties. In light of these serious breaches of conduct, I would certainly be calling on SBS and KEO Films to drop the legal action with which they have threatened the Mayor of Blacktown, Councillor Stephen Bali. Councillor Bali was right in his position to voice the deep objection of our area to the way in which people from our area were portrayed by this program, particularly in the promotions around this program. They were treated as simple comedic fodder by SBS, there to be denigrated and demeaned, and all for one purpose and one purpose only: to boost ratings. SBS management and KEO Films did not care one bit about the lasting impact on the people that I mentioned, and they certainly did not care about people in our area who have always had to struggle against stereotypes about their capability, their capacity and their right to participate in the broader society. SBS believed that it could turn these people into a joke, and when we objected, through our own mayor, what did it try to do? It tried to threaten legal action against him for raising those concerns, simply in an attempt to shut his voice out of this debate and stop him from raising what many of us felt was unfair treatment by a public broadcaster that should have known better. Councillor Bali and Blacktown council were simply standing up for our community and were wanting to make sure people were portrayed in a better, fairer light. There are many people across neighbourhoods in the electorate I represent who not only work hard to change their own lives but also open up opportunities for others. They do it with few resources, they have to fight to hold onto these resources and protect them wherever they can. The even bigger challenge is to help those who feel the weight of stigma and low esteem generated by it. For example, young people in the Chifley electorate regularly approach me, saying they will not list their residential address on resumes for fear of being turned down or denied job opportunities because employers view them in a less favourable light. This is what people in my area have fought for some time. I know their capability; I know their ability to participate. I know what they can bring in an employment or a community context because I see it every single day. Yet SBS thinks that by putting out, particularly promotions, that turn people in our area into a joke or a laughing-stock believe it is fair game and if you dare object to this, if you dare say that it is doing the wrong thing, it then tries to slap legal orders on you to threaten you from objecting to that. It is a disgrace that a public broadcaster can do this, particularly to people in my area. I want to be able to say to the people in my area that I am enormously proud of them—people such as the students from Loyola Senior High who were on ABC's Q&A program recently, speaking out against Struggle Street, highlighting the fact that they do great things. Student Johanna Larkin highlighted the stigmatisation of Mount Druitt on a national level and delivered her question with such conviction that Struggle Street was debated between the audience and panellists for most of that episode of Q&A. We have many other community groups in this area that are doing great things to change the fortunes of people who may otherwise not have the ability or the chance to fully participate in society. I think, for example, of Mount Druitt's Learning Ground, at Bidwell, doing terrific things in helping people get a second chance. It is, as I have said, often the home for second chances, helping turn people's lives around. They do so with the minimum of funding and they do not have a chance to show the great work that they do. Eagles Raps is at risk of losing funding in my area. It was portrayed in this particular program and was denied the chance to show all the good things that it does in its area and that I see quite often. What about the schools and community groups, the sporting organisations in our area that achieve well? Chifley College, Bidwill Campus have a rugby union team that is competing with some of the best in the state. You do not get to see anything that they do in this area. Ted Noffs Foundation and Mount Druitt Street University right now are compiling great stories and inspirational ones about the things they are seeing in our local community. They are having to do it in response to the negative views that are being expressed or being portrayed through this show. I think that there should be more opportunity for good news. I certainly call on the public broadcaster SBS to undertake that to correct what it has done and the damage it has caused in our area. I would like shows to come out and be able to do just that, to discuss the types of social issues that are being dealt with in some neighbourhoods within our area, because the reality is there will always be something that you like about your neighbourhood and there will be things about your neighbourhood that you would like to change. That is not alien to any suburb in this country. However, people in our area have had to put up with these types of things for many years and do not need the reinforcement of it. To be honest, I do not know in this case why the federal government refused to actually carry the concerns of people from western Sydney. Conservative politicians have no problem chipping public broadcasters if they are chipping other conservative politicians. But when we relied upon the government to actually say to SBS that what it was doing was out of line, they refused. I note the presence in the chamber of the communications minister, who expressed a view that it was not his job to be raising the concerns of people about Struggle Street. He said that it was not his job to influence the mandate of the broadcaster. Yet he felt—and I say this directly to him—that he could express his views about certain members or representatives of the public broadcaster the ABC on The Bolt Report. If it is good enough to raise those views there, Minister, why wouldn't you speak up for the people who have been mistreated by SBS's Struggle Street? —people in my area who do not deserve to be turned into comical material by SBS in the way that it did that promotion. I know for a fact that if you were there with the people in my area, you would feel just as strongly as I do. I feel that you should be speaking up for the people of this area, because I know in you, Minister, that you would not support that type of treatment. I think people would have benefited from you expressing the view, rightly so, that a promotion that categorised people in this area in that way was wrong and out of line and should not have been conducted in the way it was. And you could speak with equal fervour about that, as you have in other instances where you believe the public broadcaster has not acted in a way that has met expectation. I certainly feel strongly about it. I certainly believe, Minister, if I can say to you: it is wrong for SBS to threaten public figures with legal action because they dare react to the unfair way in which SBS categorised people in our area. I would certainly urge you to consider that in due course. But if SBS wants more advertising to promote this type of rubbish TV that has gone on and demeaned the people of the area that I represent then, quite frankly, from my own perspective, and putting aside all the great points that have been expressed by our side in this chamber, I certainly feel it should not have the opportunity to continue to denigrate people who I feel deserve a better chance than what was expressed or demonstrated by SBS in that terrible program. 19:51 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports These changes that the government has proposed to the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 are not in the spirit of the original founders of SBS. I knew some of the people who were originally behind the formation of both SBS radio and SBS TV. They very much had an ethos of speaking to multicultural Australia, of ensuring that views that were not represented in the commercial media were spoken for and expressed These days, SBS does a very good job in some ways in doing that. We all enjoyed their populist venture into Eurovision. I know they had a big audience. I think there are some aspects of the programming under the current management that have been excellent and, indeed, an improvement on some of the more ideological programs of the past. But turning SBS into another commercial network—as Harold Mitchell, FECCA and other people who are fair-minded thinkers have said—is not in the interests of Australian broadcasting in the long term. It is not in the interests of a pluralist Australia. Notwithstanding the criticisms made of that program Struggle Street, I think the government continuing to support a network that is differentiated from both what one academic friend of mine used to call the 'Anglo zone' on the ABC and the rather banal—and increasingly banal—presentations of the commercial networks is something well worth doing. I believe my colleague has now arrived. I am happy to cede the floor to her. 19:54 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and oppose this bill before us, the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015, because this bill goes to the heart of the deceit of this government. The genesis of this bill is a broken promise. This bill has been made possible because of this Prime Minister's broken promise. In fact, it is the embodiment of this government's dishonesty. What is this bill about? It is about more advertising on prime time SBS viewing as a direct consequence of this Prime Minister's broken promise. That is all it is. This bill seeks to amend the SBS Act to increase the amount of advertising that can be shown in SBS prime time—6pm to midnight—from five to 10 minutes per hour. So it is a doubling of the amount of advertising. On the night before the election, the now Prime Minister stared down the barrel of an SBS camera and said there would be no cuts to the SBS. Despite this, the 2014-15 budget included a funding cut of $53.7 million over five years for the SBS; $25.2 million of this was in direct cuts. The SBS argues that the amount was found through back-office efficiencies. A further $28.5 million was cut on the basis of allowing SBS to alternatively raise the revenue through legislative amendment and its advertising restrictions, which is the subject matter of this bill. In summary, this bill has been introduced to cover the cuts made by this government to the SBS despite explicitly promising the night before the election not to do so. As I am sure my colleagues have mentioned, and as my colleague the member for Melbourne Ports so eloquently put it, the SBS has, and continues to play, a vitally important role in the Australian media landscape, and has done since its inception. When new citizens who spoke little English wanted to find out about a historic Labor initiative called Medicare, they turned to SBS. Indeed, SBS earned the respect of the Australia people. It deserves this parliament's respect and the support of government to continue its path of innovation and comprehensive broadcasting, and the fulfilment of its roles in Australian society. I believe any attempt to water down this remit must be rejected. As I would also point out, we have seen leaders in this sector really come out against this bill. I quote an article by Matthew Knott from The Sydney Morning Heraldin October last year: The move has infuriated the commercial TV sector, which says more prime-time advertising will drive SBS towards more populist, advertiser-friendly programming. In the words of Harold Mitchell of Free TV Australia: This would create by stealth a fourth commercial network. If this happens, the free-to-air television networks will be up in arms. He also said: I don't believe the minister will allow this to happen. This is the bill we have before us. It is opposed by Free TV Australia, the commercial networks and Foxtel. As has been pointed out—even though reputable organisations like FECCA note in their submission that it is something that is going to happen—they are doing this very clearly through gritted teeth. You only have to look at the transcript from the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, which, in fact, is not due to report until 29 May. So tonight we are debating and will divide on this bill for which a parliamentary inquiry in the other place is still occurring and for which an extension of time has been granted until 29 May to report. When you look at this transcript, you can see from Ms Grammatikakis of FECCA: We have found ourselves in a conflicting position. We have found ourselves between a rock and a hard place given the current situation. On principle FECCA would not wish to see increased advertising on SBS; however, we are concerned that if this bill does pass or does not pass it could mean cuts to programs, to services and to opportunities to invest in additional initiatives that we believe could benefit our multicultural and multilingual Australian community. So here we have it. I will just continue the quote: FECCA—and this has been our position all along—has repeatedly called on the government to reinstate the funding … That has been their first call. You can see quite clearly that this is a government which is seeking to blackmail—just as it has in other pieces of legislation and other policy areas that it is trying to pursue. We see this in child care funding—a choice between increased childcare funding or adequate childcare funding—and cuts to family assistance and family tax benefits. It is just like how this government has tried to tie research funding to its higher education cuts. This is typical policy blackmail of this government writ large in this bill. I have a suggestion for them: stop breaking your promises. There was the explicit promise before the election not to cut funding. I just to go to the point made earlier this year in an article by Matthew Knott from the Herald: SBS will have to immediately axe local programs and lay off staff unless Parliament passes legislation allowing it to double the amount of advertising it can air in prime time, the multicultural broadcaster has warned. The article goes on to quote the broadcaster: Without the flexibility to generate further revenue, SBS will be forced to implement immediate cuts to its programs and services … Apparently an online survey of over 1,000 people conducted by SBS found that 73 per cent of respondents would prefer increased advertising on SBS rather than cuts to local content. What sort of question is that? Would you like to choose between having less content or having more advertising—doubling the amount of advertising in prime time? Again, I would say to this government: stop breaking your promises. There is the solution for that one. I also point out that this government has a zero mandate to undertake the measure that is before us right now. I quote from the Free TV submission on the regulation impact statement, which quite correctly states: Commercial broadcasters should not be required to subsidise funding cuts to a government-funded broadcaster. Such will be the impact on the Free TV sector that it will result in a situation where they are subsidising others. But just do not think it is the view of Free TV. I quote here from the Foxtel submission to the Senate inquiry, which rightly points out: Foxtel is aware that there has been debate about the potential financial impact of the amendments on the commercial free-to-air television sector. While Foxtel does not express a view on these calculations, we note that it is evident that no consideration has been given to the impact of the amendments on the subscription TV sector. The explanatory memorandum states: … it is not certain that any increase in SBS advertising spend will draw away revenue that would have otherwise gone to other commercial free-to-air broadcasters. That is proved wrong by Free TV in its submission, but as Foxtel points out there is no reference to the subscription TV sector at all. The main tenet of this argument is that further commercialisation of SBS—and here I am referring to representative groups such as Save Our SBS—is that further commercialisation of SBS would undermine the ability of SBS to adhere to its charter responsibility to educate and entertain all Australians. That effectively creates a fourth commercial network by stealth, as Harold Mitchell comments, given the advertising restrictions that would essentially mirror those placed on commercial networks. I agree. The President of Save Our SBS, Steve Aujard, has stated that, if passed, the proposed changes will make SBS look 'no different from commercial TV'. It is a great concern to me what the impact of doubling advertising in prime time will have on SBS and its charter requirements and it should also be a concern of every member of this House. Even the government's Lewis review made this point: ... there will be a greater pressure on SBS management to consider the trade-off of delivering on commercial expectations, against delivering those functions described in the SBS Charter. Beyond the flawed rationale for this bill and the industry opposition, which is substantial, it is also worth looking at the minister's positions and statements on public broadcasting. I note that the Save Our SBS website reports: In 2011, Malcolm Turnbull told Save Our SBS that if he had been in the Parliament in 1991–the year that SBS was granted permission to broadcast advertisements–he would have crossed the floor and voted against that. So, according to Save Our SBS, the minister told them that he would have crossed the floor to vote against advertising on SBS—and he feels so strongly about it that he now seeks to increase prime time ads on the multicultural broadcaster. That is according to the Save Our SBS website. Mr Turnbull interjecting— Ms ROWLAND 159771 If that is incorrect, I am sure the minister will correct the record. Since we are talking about public broadcasters, I would also like to take issue with our minister's recent directive, if I could call it that, to journalists on our public broadcasters. Recently on The Bolt Report the minister urged senior SBS journalists to adopt a less aggressive style of interviewing. Quite frankly, I would suggest, and I know that many people on this side would also suggest, that the minister would be well advised to stay away from offering advice on the interviewing styles of journalists on our public broadcasters. If he thinks that that is appropriate and he likes to stay close to directing editorial content then sobeit, but it is not something that is looked upon kindly by the public. This bill is an attempt to blackmail the parliament into supporting this government's explicit broken promise. If the bill is passed, it will tip the scales too far in favour of profit over public benefit—and all for the sake of a broken promise. I urge this parliament not to be coerced into supporting this government's broken promises. I will not be part of a vote which goes towards assisting this government to break it promises. Lastly, whilst we are talking about SBS, it would be remiss of me not to mention an issue that is very close to the member for Chifley's heart and is also one that is very close to mine, and that is the recent broadcast of the series Struggle Street. I am all in favour of a creativity. I am all in favour of telling Australian stories. I am disappointed that I missed the member for Chifley's contribution, but I will look it up later. Whilst we have this opportunity for people to create and tell stories that we find difficult to hear, I would have preferred—and I would think there is plenty of material to demonstrate it—stories about the success of individuals of Mount Druitt. I refer to this in particular because, obviously, it is something close to my heart, and it is not the first time I have mentioned it in this place. I think my husband is one of the best examples of someone who has been a leader in the Mount Druitt community, someone who grew up in a public housing estate in Shalvey. He could not speak English when he started school but through the care of his local Shalvey public school and then Shalvey high school and the teachers there, through his parents and through the initiative that he took himself, he is now a senior partner with Corrs Chambers Westgarth. How does that happen for someone from a Lebanese background who could not speak English when he started school, who grew up in a public housing estate? That is not in the script. That is not the script that is supposed to happen, but it should be the script—it should be a success story that is told. I can think of any number of success stories out of Mount Druitt, where young people in particular need to see role models. We have been talking a lot today about social cohesion. One of the key drivers of social cohesion is having role models to show you that 'I can achieve my dreams if I persist, if I work hard, if I have patience, if I apply myself, if I ensure that I do whatever I do with enthusiasm and attention to detail.' I would have thought that that would have been either a good ending to Struggle Street or certainly a part 2 of Struggle Street. A lot of people in our community are doing it hard—and often doing it hard, may I say, because of the decisions of this government, including the abolition of very successful transition to work programs and abolishing very important organisations like Blacktown Community Aid, which has had to close its doors after 41 years. It stayed around for four decades—it survived the GFC, it survived everything else, but this government is so mean that it cannot enable such an important grassroots community organisation to continue doing its work. As I said, the genesis of this bill is a broken promise. We on this side will not be party to assisting this government to break their promises. If they feel the need to do that, if they feel like doing this even without having the report of the Senate inquiry, then they can be my guest. But we will not be part of it. 20:09 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate on the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015, and I will now seek to sum up the debate to date. I must refer to the contribution of the member for Greenway. Her rebuke of me for expressing a view about the interviewing style of journalists on television and the inappropriateness of my daring to comment on anything that occurred on public television was still hanging in the air when she proceeded to give a fairly forthright critique of the Struggle Street program on SBS. The reality is that we are all—ministers, parliamentarians, citizens, adults, children, anybody—entitled in a democracy to express our views about what happens on television, just as we are entitled to express our views about what happens here, and may it long be so. This bill, I stress to honourable members, does not change the current restrictions on the overall amount of advertising per 24 hours that the SBS has, and it does not represent any further commercialisation of the SBS. The SBS is a hybrid model already—most of its revenue comes from the government, and I will come to that in a moment, but it has an advertising component. What we are seeking to do, while retaining the absolute number of minutes—120 minutes a day—is to give the SBS the flexibility to have not more than 10 in any given hour which, as honourable members obviously apprehend, will mean that they will run more than five minutes, which is their current hourly limit during the more popular and prime time programs. It is very clear how we got here. During the six years of Labor government, as I was saying to the House earlier today, for every $1 of additional revenue the government received they spent $2. When we came into government we inherited a growing mountain of debt and a budget that was deeply in deficit. We have had to make savings, and in my own portfolio that includes savings at the national broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS, which receive $1.4 billion every year from the government. I asked the Department of Communications, my department, to undertake an efficiency study to identify savings that could be made by improving efficiencies in the back-of-house departments of the ABC and the SBS; in other words, savings that could be made without reducing the resources available for programming. It was very important from my point of view to ensure that the public broadcasters were able to continue to deliver the same quality content to the public but in a more efficient way. Savings have been achieved, inspired by—if not entirely in accordance with—the study. One of the recommendations from the efficiency study was that advertising flexibility be given to the SBS. In November last year I announced that the national broadcasters will return $308 million in savings to the budget over five years. This means the SBS's operating budget will be reduced by $25.2 million and, along with the revenue of $28.5 million generated as a result of this bill, the SBS's total savings returned to the budget over the five-year period amount to $53.7 million. In the short term this bill allows additional advertising revenue to be directed towards meeting the government's efficiency savings applied to the SBS from 1 July 2015, without affecting its programming. If these advertising measures are not passed before the end of this financial year the SBS will need to find other ways to achieve the necessary savings, which it has indicated may involve reductions in programming and services. In the longer term the government's intention from these changes is for the SBS to become a stronger and more sustainable broadcaster. Advertising flexibility strengthens the SBS by making it less dependent on government and helps to secure its future and independence. It is not part of this government's policy, but honourable members should be very well aware that for many years there have been advocates on both sides of the House and right through the television industry, and certainly at the ABC, that the SBS should be folded into the ABC. That, of course, is something that the SBS is not very keen on. Giving the SBS greater advertising flexibility, greater financial independence, will help to secure its independence in the years ahead. It is anticipated that the SBS advertising measures will result in a total increase in the SBS's advertising revenue of $28½ million over four years. In later years, if SBS exceeds that run rate the additional revenue can be directed towards delivering more distinctive and innovative content and services in line with its charter responsibilities. I should note—because this is important, given that the free-to-air commercial television broadcasters have argued that this is a very bad development, a very bad proposal, because it will result in some advertising dollars being taken from them—that the two highest television results for SBS since it started to carry advertising in 2003 were $72.3 million in 2009-10 and $73.4 million in 2013-14, and these were in large part due to the FIFA World Cup being broadcast. I contrast this to the advertising revenue earned by commercial broadcasters, of $3.9 billion in 2013-14. The reality is that the SBS's revenues are a very, very tiny part of the total advertising revenues of the television industry. The additional advertising revenue received by SBS is highly unlikely to have any material impact on the advertising revenue of the commercial broadcasters. As I noted earlier, the 2013-14 figure of $73.4 million was a high point due to the FIFA World Cup. In the previous year, without the FIFA World Cup, it was only $58 million. Free TV, the commercial television stations' lobby group, claims that this proposal will result in SBS earning $148 million over four years from 2015-16, or $37 million per annum. These are so optimistic that I would say that they border on the fanciful. But even if one were to accept them, $37 million per annum represents less than one per cent of the $3.9 billion total commercial television advertising pool in 2013-14. SBS already competes for advertising with the commercial free-to-air broadcasters, and the proposed bill simply does not change this. Audience size is fundamentally what attracts most advertisers, and SBS has a niche audience that simply does not compete with the commercial free-to-air sector in this respect. I have noted honourable members from the opposition saying that it would be terrible if the SBS were to carry more advertising in prime time, because it would encourage them to produce programs that were popular. This of course shows the impossible task that public broadcasters are set. On one hand, if they produce program after program of remote interest to the public—say, Sophocles in the original Greek—they will be accused of being elitist and a waste of taxpayers' money. On the other hand, if they produce programs that people actually want to watch, the commercial broadcasters will say, 'Stop, stop; you're taking our audience.' The reality is that both SBS and ABC have to tread a line down the middle. It is a question of judgement. But, on any view, the SBS is an absolute niche broadcaster. For example, over the past five years the SBS has had no more than four of the top 500 top-rating free-to-air television programs in the mainland state capital cities for any given year on either main channels or multichannels. Excluding football and cycling, this figure drops to between nil and one program. So, the reality is that this is a sensible, commercial, responsible change to SBS. It will make it more independent financially. It will give it more flexibility in terms of advertising. It is simply changing the way in which it can schedule its advertisements; it is not increasing the number of advertisements that are broadcast on any day. It will increase SBS's revenues. At one level I would love to think that the free-to-air television stations are right in their forecast, but they simply are not. The SBS and the Department of Communications have gone over these figures very carefully, and the figure that we are assuming—$28½ million—is a prudent and conservative one and we think achievable. The figures of $37 million a year that the commercial television stations have proposed is, as I said, so extreme as to be fanciful. In its submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill, the SBS itself said: SBS’s ability to earn commercial revenue is critical to its operating model and sustainability. As a hybrid funded organisation since 1991, SBS has a highly evolved workplace culture, operating systems and codes and guidelines in place to manage the complexities of being a public broadcaster with commercial activities. The organisation is well-positioned to responsibly and sensitively manage increased flexibility in advertising and sponsorship in line with audience and stakeholder expectations, whilst maintaining the integrity of the SBS Charter. To summarise for honourable members, to put this all in context: SBS has traditionally received around 75 per cent of its funding from government, including its base funding, tied funding for the production broadcast of NITV, and funding for transmission itself. This financial year, 2014-15, government revenue to SBS was $286 million. In the same year, SBS's total revenue from all commercial sources is predicted to be $96 million. Advertising and sponsorship spikes every four years during the FIFA World Cup, and in 2014-15, a World Cup year, SBS's revenue, advertising, sponsorship and subscription channels will be $85.2 million, and that includes additional commercial revenue from sources such as television royalties, merchandising, rental income and interest. So, the changes proposed in this bill have only a minor impact on SBS's overall revenue make-up, with its commercial revenue share projected to increase from 25 to 29 per cent of its total revenue over the forward estimates, and its impact on the rest of the commercial television industry is somewhere between nil and negligible in real terms. If this bill is not passed, given the reality that budget efficiencies have already been signed off on and will be implemented from 1 July, there will be an immediate, significant and negative impact on SBS. That is the reality. We were left a growing mountain of debt and an enormous deficit because of Labor's profligacy. We have had to make savings. SBS is making its contribution. It surely is outrageous for the Labor Party, having created the debt problem because of their reckless spending, to then stand in the way of the government responsibly addressing it. On that note, I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I thank the minister for his summing up. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Bill read a second time.

The House divided. [20:27]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Broadbent)

 80 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Brough, MT Buchholz, S (teller) Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gambaro, T Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hockey, JB Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE 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 Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Vasta, RX Whiteley, BD Wicks, LE Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 46 NOES Albanese, AN Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN King, CF Leigh, AK Macklin, JL MacTiernan, AJGC Marles, RD Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Third Reading 81 20:33 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 81 BUSINESS Rearrangement 81 20:34 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 81 MOTIONS Centenary of Anzac 81 20:34 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga On Anzac Day this year we passed that moment when, exactly 100 years ago, our young Anzacs stepped off the boats under a breaking Gallipoli dawn. That moment—and the many terrible ones to follow—are woven into our national identity because of what they were to reveal: the acts of courage, sacrifice, mateship and heartbreak. On that morning in 1915 this young army of volunteer soldiers was committed to an impossible objective along those chalky cliffs and ridges. For the next eight months, that place would be their mission and their home. It was here that the 'digger' came into being. Of course, it was a tactical blunder that put them there—one totally beyond their control. The eight-month bloody stalemate that followed was to no military gain. The Gallipoli campaign proved to be a prelude to the much larger tragedy of the First World War between 1914 and 1918, with a shocking loss of life and dreadful injuries. One hundred years on, across Australia, in our cities, suburbs and towns, people of all walks of life gathered in record numbers to remember them. Importantly, we saw the next generation of young people take ownership of our commemorations like never before. In my electorate of Jagajaga, a series of milestone projects were supported under the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Progam, announced by Prime Minister Gillard in April 2012 My local Electorate Committee has worked very hard to ensure that every resident has the chance to engage in our commemorations through to 2018. I thank all the members of the Electorate Committee including: Jeff Mawkes, Watsonia RSL; Bill Telfer, Greensborough RSL; Rob Winther from the Austin Repatriation Hospital; Fred Cullen, Ivanhoe RSL; and those who supported the work of the committee—Nillumbik Shire Council, Banyule Council, the Australian Army Signals Historical Foundation at Simpson Army Barracks, as well as our local historical societies. A very special thanks must go to President Bill McKenna of the Montmorency-Eltham RSL. For two years, Bill has worked closely with each of our local RSLs, councils, local schools and my office. I would also like to particularly thank one of my electorate staff, Antony Kenney. Bill hosted planning meetings, knocked on doors and tied everything together. We got some tremendous projects delivered, including: a commemorative ceramic mosaic project depicting the human stories of Gallipoli, which will be at the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital; a project to digitise precious film negatives from World War One Army Signallers at the Simpson Barracks in my electorate; an innovative project to install interpretive signage at the Kangaroo Ground Memorial Tower; and an extension to the War Memorial cenotaph in Eltham. The Jagajaga Schools ANZAC Centenary Commemorative Service, led by local school students. It was held at Petrie Park, the home of the Montmorency-Eltham RSL. This event was supported by over 1200 students from six local schools, and I would like to thank them all: Loyola College, Eltham College, Catholic Ladies College, Montmorency Secondary School, Bundoora Secondary School and Ivanhoe Girls Grammar School. At Petrie Park that day we saw inspiring young future leaders from each of these schools play their part to spread a strong message of peace in our community. The role of event MC was provided by James Hone from Montmorency Secondary College, our college captain and an extremely impressive young leader who steered the event through to conclusion. I extend my thanks to him for the central role he played. Campbell Wilson, also from Montmorency Secondary College, offered a very haunting performance of Flowers of the Forest on the bagpipes; Loyola College provided the catafalque and flag bearer party; Sean-Donehue from Eltham College sang an extraordinary rendition of Amazing Grace and also led their boys choir in the New Zealand National Anthem, and Sean sang the first verse of that anthem in Maori. Many commented on how powerful Sean's voice was for such a young man, and I know we will hear many more great things from him in the future. Eltham College also led the Australian National Anthem. Keisha Healy and Malik Sitou from Bundoora Secondary College led the ANZAC Requiem, which is always, of course, a very moving moment; the Ivanhoe Girls Grammar School Chamber Choir sang a beautiful rendition of Here You Lie (Side by Side); the Catholic Ladies College led the Lord's Prayer and Laura Lazzara, from that great school, offered the Ode and Lest We Forget. The Heidelberg Brass Band provided the Last Post to cap off a very inspiring and stirring event. This very successful event—like the rest that will follow—will help to spread the message of peace: that war is never something to be glorified, but that we take this opportunity, and will continue to do so, to acknowledge the sacrifice made by so many. As a community, we must always work towards enhancing peace, understanding and tolerance. Importantly, these projects will help shed new light on our local ANZAC stories and where possible reveal new ones, because our community has its own fascinating stories to tell. We have a local historian and resident, Terry Phillips, a man who has done enormous amounts of local research and has records that indicate the last man off Gallipoli came from Greensborough. One of the most prominent works of art commemorating fallen soldiers from the First World War in the Australian War Memorial, Menin Gate at Midnight, was painted by William Longstaff, an Eltham resident. William Longstaff served in the Australian Remount Unit in the Middle East, where his commanding officer was none other than Banjo Paterson. These are just two fascinating snippets of many local stories that will be told and retold through these projects, as we commemorate the Centenary of ANZAC through to 2018. Once again I would like to thank all of those involved for all the work they have done—especially our local RSLs and Bill McKenna in particular—to make this a very special time for all our local residents. 20:43 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The Centenary of the ANZAC landings at Gallipoli was commemorated in my electorate of Moore and in communities across the nation at ceremonies and local events. This significant event in our national history has contributed to our Australian national identity and the values which we hold dear, including devotion to duty, loyalty to one's mates, personal sacrifice and service to our country. At that time, Australia was a young nation, barely 15 years out of Federation, and the First World War represented our first substantive entry onto the international stage. Patriotic Australians, keen to do their duty for king and country enlisted in the Australian Imperial Forces. The First World War unleashed the horror of modern warfare on an unprecedented scale. The period between 1870 and the early 1900s represented a significant era in the development of small arms and artillery. The technological development of modern nitro-cellulose based explosives, propellant and cartridges led to the design and development of automatic weapons with high sustained rates of fire, and artillery with explosive ordnance. These technological advances changed the ground rules of warfare: never before in history had such lethal and effective weapons been deployed on the battlefield, inflicting heavy casualties and loss of life. The Anzac troops were confronted with the sombre reality of entrenched machine gun positions and the appalling stalemate conditions of trench warfare. In these conditions of hardship and deprivation, the Anzac spirit was born out of our troops' support of each other. In the context of a world that is faced with conflict and security concerns, it is important that these Anzac values be maintained and passed down to future generations of young Australians so that we as a nation may meet and overcome the future security challenges that we face as a nation in uncertain times. Just as the Anzacs were confronted with modern weapons, today we are faced with new security threats and the difficulty in identifying our enemies in the war on terrorism. However, armed with the Anzac spirit, we will be able to overcome whatever those future challenges may be. At a local level, I pay tribute to the community work of the local Returned Services League branches in my electorate: the Ocean Reef RSL, led by President Rick Green; the Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL, led by President Wendy Tuffin; and the Quinns Rocks RSL led by President Peter Lofdahl. I recognise the valuable contribution which the team of volunteers make in promoting the welfare of veterans and in raising public awareness of the issues facing our service personnel. The federal government introduced the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program to assist communities in commemorating the centenary with enduring projects. The Moore electorate committee consisted of the freemen of the cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo: Nick Trandos OAM, Margaret Cockman OAM, and Bill Marwick OAM. I wish to thank these longstanding residents for the benefit of their historical knowledge and advice in reviewing the applications and recommending three projects for approval. A memorial arch and monument proposed by the Ocean Reef RSL was constructed in the grounds of the Ocean Reef Sea Sports Club. The memorial contains thoughtful symbolism in its design elements and was designed by sculptors Charles Smith and Joan Walsh-Smith. The Somerly Primary School in Clarkson built an Anzac memorial garden in the school grounds, consisting of raised flowerbeds covered in specially designed tiles, paying tribute to the elements of the Australian Defence Force: the Army, Navy, Air Force, and peacekeeping operations. The Quinns Rocks RSL, which draws its membership base from both the    Moore and Pearce electorates, received shared funding for a traditional obelisk memorial surrounded by a formal garden overlooking the bowling greens at the Quinns Rocks Sports Club. Local schools across my electorate also held Anzac ceremonies to mark the centenary. I was pleased to attend three school ceremonies on Friday, 24 April. Sacred Heart College held a Dawn Service on Sorrento Beach, directly across the road from the school grounds. Many families attended, and I joined Anna and Grace Murphy—daughters of Ray Murphy, an ex-serviceman—who wore their grandfather's medals, in laying a wreath in the Indian Ocean. I acknowledge Principal Peter Bothe for his leadership in organising the event. Somerly Primary School held a morning service around the newly constructed Anzac memorial garden, and it was pleasing to see so many parents in attendance. I make mention of Principal Tracey Renton, who has been supportive of educating students about Anzac history. In the afternoon, the students and staff at Joseph Banks Secondary College held its memorial service outdoors, with many parents in attendance. I acknowledge Principal Eleanor Hughes, who commenced as foundation principal when the school opened earlier this year and has done a creditable job in establishing school events anew, such as the Anzac service. On Anzac Day the three local RSL branches held dawn services, which attracted record crowds in paying their respects. I was among a crowd of approximately 10,000 residents that attended the Wanneroo-Joondalup RSL service in Central Park, in Joondalup. My electorate of Moore has a historical connection to Anzac Centenary through the 10th Light Horse Regiment. The regiment was raised in Western Australia in October 1914 and joined the 3rd Light Horse Brigade in Egypt, serving dismounted in Gallipoli. The regiment's most famous actions were the charge at the Nek, on 7 August 1915, and at Hill 60, on 29 August to 30 August, in which Lieutenant VH Throssell was awarded the Victoria Cross. Following the withdrawal from Gallipoli in December 1915, the regiment was reorganised. With the rest of the Australian light horse, they defended Egypt from the Ottoman army advancing on the Suez Canal. Through 1916, they drove the Turks across the deserts of Sinai, participating in the battles of Romani and Magdhaba. In 1917, they were part of the Desert Column which advanced into Palestine. The regiment participated in the bloody battles to break the Gaza-Beersheba line and helped capture Jerusalem. It participated in the Es Salt Raid in May of 1918. That August, it was one of the regiments re-equipped with swords and rifle boots and retrained to take a more orthodox cavalry role. In their new role, they took part in the rout of the Ottoman army in the Jordan Valley—a campaign the light horse referred to as 'The Great Ride'. In September, the 10th Light Horse was the first formed regiment to enter Damascus. Turkey subsequently surrendered on 30 October 1918. The regiment first camped in Wanneroo on the east side of Wanneroo Road, south of Ashley Road, but later moved to the site of today's 10th Light Horse Heritage Trail in the Neerabup National Park, leading to the site of the second camp formed during World War II, which accommodated 600 men camped with equipment and their horses. Perhaps the best known local identity to have served at Gallipoli was AB Facey, who spent part of his life working on farms and lime kilns in the Wanneroo district. His autobiography, A Fortunate Life, chronicles his incredible life story. In concluding, we honour the service of the original Anzacs a century ago, and pay tribute to all Defence Force personnel who have served our nation in world wars and conflicts since then. We owe it to them to never forget their sacrifice and contribution. 20:52 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I am proud to report to this House some of the activities which have taken place in the electorate of Indi to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the ANZAC landing. In my speech tonight I would like to comment on the activities I was involved in on Anzac Day, report on the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program and conclude with some    general comments on the importance of the values of service, duty and vision. Anzac Day in north-east Victoria dawned cold and wet. Despite the wet start, the crowds were large in the early morning light at the Wodonga dawn service, at the Anzac morning service in Tangambalanga and then during my visit to the World War I Yackandandah Remembers exhibition at the Yackandandah Museum. I was particularly pleased to be able to join many locals at the gunbarrel breakfast provided by the Wodonga RSL and the Vietnam Veterans. As we huddled around the heaters and watched the TV broadcast from the war memorial in Melbourne, we felt a strong sense of camaraderie. I am told that community participation in Anzac Day services has been growing steadily in the past decade across all of Indi, and it is clear from this that we value and honour the commemoration. Under the federal government's Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program, funding of up to $125,000 was available for each federal member of parliament to support projects in their electorate. I would like to acknowledge the work of the former MP for Indi, Ms Sophie Mirabella, in establishing the initial Indi committee to oversee the processes of community involvement in this program. Under Sophie's guidance a call went out to the various community groups across Indi for projects, and the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program Committee spent much time, energy and commitment considering all these projects. To the committee members, I would like to say thank you for your commitment, your valuable contribution and your insight and knowledge. I would like to name them for Hansard: David Martin, Bruce Bingham, Doug Brockfield, Norm Fearn, Barbara Riedel, Peter Dixon, Kevyn Williams, Doug Williams and Henry Andrews. It is with pride that I report to the House some of the projects funded under this program: the Alpine Shire Council commissioned and erected a statue to Albert David (Alby) Lowerson, VC winner, in Myrtleford; the Beechworth RSL sub-branch received funds to refurbish the cenotaph in the Beechworth Town Hall gardens; the Beechworth Theatre Company is staging Alan Seymour's play The One Day of the Year, along with an essay and multimedia competition open to schools and the public; the Benalla RSL sub-branch commissioned three bronze panels commemorating the Australian Flying Corps; Bonegilla RSL received funds for the production of a bronze plaque for the Bonegilla community commemorating 28 soldiers who served in World War I and publication of a book, Brave Bonegilla Boys; the Bright RSL sub-branch's My Great War Hero proposal encourages students at Bright P-12 to research local service men and women, to present this information to a community lunch and to mount a bronze plaque in the existing town memorial about the project; the Chiltern Athenaeum is restoring the wheels of a very old German Krupp 77 millimetre field gun at the Chiltern war memorial and replacing the Middle Indigo school honour board; and I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of the Corryong RSL German Krupp 77 millimetre field gun on the gas-powered cauldron installed at Corryong cenotaph to provide an eternal flame. Special congratulations go to the trio of horse soldiers who lit a lantern from the eternal flame cauldron at the Shrine in Melbourne, then brought the lantern back to Corryong by horse. Three riders—Heidi Walton, Mark Walton and Bridget Waters—completed the 100 Year Ride Back. It was a fantastic effort. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Corryong RSL sub-branch in pulling this project together. Congratulations go to Michael Leonhard, our project manager, and to the Corryong Neighbourhood Centre for providing the leadership and organisation for this wonderful Anzac Day commemorative event. Congratulations go to the Eskdale Primary School for the planting of a Lone Pine tree and installing a plaque; to the Greta Sporting Complex for installing two flag poles, an honour board and a rock with bronze plaques—well done Greta; to the Jamieson Community Group for restoring the memorial avenue in Jamieson and planting trees—and thank you for your very warm welcome; to the RSL at Kiewa for installing memorial walls at Yackandandah, Kiewa and Sandy Creek; to the Lucyvale Tennis Club for commissioning two display cabinets to house World War I memorabilia, an honour roll, plaques and other work; and to the Mansfield RSL sub-branch for putting together transportable panels displaying local servicemen and women who were involved in Gallipoli and the Western Front. These panels can be moved around to schools, hospitals, community halls and events. I particularly thank them for their warm welcome, and to Sue Gardner, Graham Godber and Geoff Walker, congratulations on your work. Congratulations also go to the Mansfield Historical Society for their fantastic work. I enjoyed so much the three videos that you made. They were about Mansfield's war horses, letters from the frontline and stories of women at war—fantastic work. Congratulations go to the Rutherglen RSL sub-branch for commissioning a 1.8 metre World War 1 granite soldier to be installed at the Rutherglen Memorial Gardens; to the Wangaratta RSL sub-branch for commissioning a new granite memorial that has been installed next to the cenotaph; to the Whorouly Memorial Park Committee for renovating the Whorouly memorial, conducting a tree planting, putting together a new honour board, and supplying five memorial plaques and a commemorative booklet; and to Wangaratta High School for the research, development and creation of five terrific interpretation boards at the high school—again, it was a fantastic job and so good to see the community and students engaged in that project. I would also like to acknowledge the four students from Indi who were part of the 80 young Victorians selected to take part in the Anzac Day Gallipoli tour. The students and their teacher chaperones represented Victoria at the 2015 Anzac Day dawn service at Gallipoli, as well as attending the Australian memorial service at Lone Pine. So, to Maddison, Brad, Oliver and Sarah, and teacher Michelle: well done. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 85 ADJOURNMENT Medicare 85 21:00 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith In March 2014, I was informed that the local Medicare office in our community, in Eastgardens shopping centre, would no longer open on a Saturday. The reason given by the minister responsible, Senator Payne, was that the service was no longer well patronised on a Saturday, so it was no longer required. So I checked it out. The next weekend, I walked down to the local Medicare at Eastgardens on the Saturday and I saw what was going on. What I saw was a well-patronised service. I saw people lining up to use the Medicare service on a Saturday. The line actually went out the door. People were lining up out the door to access this important health service. Understandably, it gave me the opportunity to talk to the people in the line about their views on Medicare closing on a Saturday. They were livid about this decision of the Abbott government. Most of them were telling me that they are flat out during the week, busy with work and family, and they do not have the opportunity to get to the office should they need to change a name on a Medicare card and the like. The elderly were telling me that they do not have the capacity to access some of the online services. When I came back to parliament, I expressed the anger of our community and asked the government to reverse their decision. Not only did they not reverse the decision; they have now gone a step further: they are about to close the Eastgardens Medicare office. Thousands of constituents that rely on this service will be inconvenienced. The office is going to be moved to nearby Maroubra, into the Centrelink office. Needless to say, the community is up in arms about this decision. They see it as a kick in the pants, and many have been venting their anger on my Facebook page. I would like to record for the parliament some of the comments that we have received. Kelly Millward said: Bad idea! No parking in maroubra, and a very long walk for some from the bus... plus more buses through eastgardens! Maroubra centerlink doesn't function well now - don't add pressure to staff and services by closing their closest support... Paula Wynyard said: What a bad idea. Eastgardens so much more accessible for people, and undercover, which is much more practical for the elderly and new families. Why make an already busy office worse! Josanne Ryan said: Do they simply wan to discourage people and make us feel contempt for our government services? They have done this in the Centrelink office at Bondi Junction and it's a nightmare when you try to go there to claim Medicare. They have people there turning you away as the 'wait time is long...well over an hour'. Just go home and claim online. Well if that was possible we would have done it. There are times when you need assistance. Sandi Caldwell said simply: Ridiculous! Bad idea There are also rumblings within our community that the Baird Liberal government is about to close the RTA office in Maroubra. So, another important government service that is accessible by members of our community will be closed by a Liberal government. The message out of all of this is that Liberal governments cut services. We have seen that not only in my community through these cuts but also in the broader Australian context through the cuts that have been made to the Public Service and to government services that are delivered by the federal and state governments. This is an attack on government services that thousands rely on each week. Many see it as completely unacceptable. It will inconvenience members of our community by forcing them to go and line up for Medicare payments at Centrelink, where they face much longer queues and delays, mixed in with people seeking other services provided by Centrelink. It is opposed by my community, and I ask the minister to reconsider this decision. It will particularly inconvenience the elderly because buses are not as accessible and parking is not as available at the Centrelink office at Maroubra. It is a bad decision, it is a cut to government services, and I call on the government to reverse the closure of Medicare Eastgardens and do what is right by our community. International Development Assistance 86 21:05 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee On a quiet evening such as this, it is important to raise issues that I think do not often get touched on in this parliament. This is something that I think is very important to our standing in the world and to the generosity that defines us as Australian people, and that is foreign aid. Foreign aid is very important. It is something I hold very dear to my heart. But I think we have perhaps failed, in this parliament and in many previous parliaments, to sell the story of what can be achieved through our generosity in the Asia-Pacific region and throughout the world—to the point where our government and previous governments can make cuts to foreign aid, and Australians largely ignore it, sometimes applaud it or accept it as a budgetary savings measure. There is of course some waste in our foreign aid program, and we should, wherever we can, minimise that waste. But, if something that defines us as Australians is our generous nature, then an example to the world of our generous nature is how we give to and care for those who are less fortunate than us. I fear that aid has become 'out of sight, out of mind' and I fear that we have not learnt to value what we cannot see. We talk about indexation of pensions, we talk about funding for the unemployed, we talk about funding for our roads—and they are all big challenges for our budget. But 20c can save a life. Immunisation, which we know from our own population saves lives, can do tremendous things in our region. I fear that perhaps we as leaders become a little bit focused on our internal budget and so we do not take ownership of the responsibility that leadership bestows on us to take the Australian people on the journey of foreign aid. I have written to the Prime Minister and I have pointed out that the targeted aid, in particular, provides opportunities for value-adding and encouraging economic growth in countries such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and in the South Pacific. It does deal with health and education, empowering young women and girls in particular. When we spend our foreign aid on microbusinesses with women, that money is not wasted. But sometimes when it goes to the male in the household, the money it is drunk. When the money goes to the women in the household, they grab hold of that opportunity and help lift the standard of living for the children. We see that aid can build ineffective governance. We take for granted what we have in a country that largely has no corruption. If we can instil effective governance in other parts of the world and reduce corruption through our interaction, that also helps lift the standard of living for others. And also, in information exchange in agriculture, I am mindful that our farmers use global positioning systems; but I have seen another GPS in agriculture, and it is as basic as a piece of string—literally running a string line out and planting a crop on it. This has helped to lift yields and the availability of food for people in developing countries. There are many things we can offer. One of those things is the skills we have and the exchange of those skills. As part of our foreign aid budget, if we can encourage Australians to participate more in the Asia-Pacific region with short trips to enhance those skills, that not only helps lift their standard of living; it also lifts our understanding, our sense of pride and our sense of purpose. Australians have a lot to offer. My hope and my dream is that we will not say that the economy is tough and see foreign aid as something that can continue to be cut. One of the things I was most proud of in my own personal business was when our business gave some money and bought 3,000 meals post the tsunami. We were in a drought and we went through difficult times in our business; but, when I look back, it is a thing I value very much after my 20 years of farming. Times will always be challenging in this place; but, as leaders, let's sell the story about the value of foreign aid, and may we continue to grow it in budgets to come. Israel 87 21:10 Mr BROUGH 2K6 Fisher The subject I wish to raise tonight is not one which lends itself to a five-minute address. Just before the budget I travelled to Israel as part of a delegation with the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council. For me it was incredibly illuminating and also sobering. There are many members in this place who have travelled to Israel to learn about the complexity of an issue and a region that affects everyone of us. As recently as today, we in this House have reflected on ISIS and the radicalisation of Islam and the impact it has on us. In Israel I met with all sides—Arab Christians, Jews and Arab Muslims. I travelled to Ramallah, to Gaza and up to the border with Lebanon. I got an appreciation of the challenges faced by these people and also the strength of this society and community. There are a couple of observations I would like to make and put on the record which I think cemented my own views before I travelled. First of all, we say all the time in this place that the first duty of the parliament and of the government is to protect its people—and border protection has been at the forefront of our thinking in recent years. For the Prime Minister and government of Israel, the reality is that you have literally 15 seconds between receiving a warning and missiles landing in Beersheba, a place known so well to many Australians. The playgrounds have bomb shelters in them. By law, every house has to have a bomb shelter. This brings into stark relief what these people are dealing with each and every day, yet they get on with their lives. One of the things that struck me on this one-week trip is that something stands out. I defy anyone to come up with a comment by an Israeli official that they wish to obliterate the Arab world, that they wish to destroy the Palestinian people, that they wish to attack Iran, that they wish to take out those forces in Lebanon just for the sake of it or that those people do not have a place in society. Those words do not exist—because it is not the belief of the Jewish people. But, sadly, there are Persians and Arabs who actually believe that no Israeli, no Jew, has the right to be in the nation of Israel. Everyone we spoke to on the Israeli side, and many of the Arabs, wants to see the two nations living side-by-side in harmony. I too want to see that. But how does the government of the day deal with the Palestinian Authority? Is it Fatah or is it Hamas? If you are on the Gaza Strip, you are dealing with a different body than if you are on the West Bank. It was less than 12 months ago, when the rockets were raining down, that the tunnels that were going to deliver killers into the suburbs and towns of Israel were discovered and destroyed. Because of the international ramifications—as well as the implications for our people and our nation—of the radicalisation that is occurring in this part of the world I think it behoves those who have declined the opportunity to travel to Israel and learn about it to now do so and open their minds in relation to some attitudes which they hold dear which they may find confronting when they are confronted with other facts. With my last couple of comments I wish to comment about the young people that we met—the university students and the young military personnel who have responsibility beyond their years but have such a joyful life, whether it is working in the IT sector and the start-ups, in the military or in the universities. They have a responsibility. They have a love for life that they cherish, and I understand their desire to protect their homeland—a homeland of thousands of years. What they are doing there needs the support of all Australians, as do the Palestinian people, but at no stage should we ever desert the Israeli people and the Jewish people's right to have their homeland. Palmer United Party 87 21:15 Mr PALMER LQR Fairfax I think it is appropriate that I review and report to our members what Palmer United has achieved during this term in parliament. We have stopped the GP co-payment. We have stopped the changes to university. We stopped $10 billion cuts to social security, freed 436 children and 1,500 adults from detention on Christmas Island and resolved with Minister Scott Morrison 30,000 cases in detention. We have supported and introduced the safe haven enterprise visas. We voted in the Senate to save the low-income super for over two million Australians. We have kept the schoolkids bonus and the low-income support. When the carbon tax was abolished, we stood firm in the Senate and reduced electricity prices by 10 per cent across Australia. In the Senate we passed and put up 15 amendments to direct action before it got through the Senate, and we have seen the changes that that has recently made. We have also saved the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Corporation and ARENA, and so far we have kept the RET target as it is. The government also moved to fix pensions for all veterans over 55 years in accordance with our policy. In Queensland we stopped the election of the Campbell Newman government. We have been responsible with the government for setting up two parliamentary inquiries: the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth and the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Fund Establishment for drought relief. And, of course, there is the inquiry in the Senate into the Queensland government. We voted to support the abolition of the carbon tax and the mining tax and next week will introduce a private members' bill to deal with the foreign death penalty issues that were recently raised. We protected maritime workers and jobs. We proved that Australia's debt was not the problem the government made it out to be. Cabinet adopted our policy to ban lobbyists from party positions after its election. On electoral reform we have been successful in having pens used instead of pencils. In the Senate we voted to keep Qantas Australian owned, to stop changes to the income tax-free threshold and to stop the financial incentives to sell off public assets. We think we have saved jobs in the Australian offshore gas industry and have stopped the slashing of university research grants. In October 2014, the IMF estimated that the Australian government's net debt would be 16.6 per cent of GDP in 2015, below the 74.1 per cent forecast for advanced economies. Under Prime Minister Menzies's government our national debt was around 40 per cent, and Australia today has the largest pool of funds under fund management, third largest in the world and the largest in the Australian region, so we have plenty of capital. With 23 years of consecutive economic growth, labour productivity has recorded a compound annual growth rate of 1.8 per cent per annum while real unit labour costs have fallen by 0.5 per cent every year to make Australia more competitive. Australia has one of the highest entry rates into tertiary education in the world, at 102 per cent including international students, above the OECD average of 58 per cent. High rates of tertiary education underpin Australia's position as the No. 1 developed country in terms of real GDP growth over the last 20 years. Australia has the second largest stock market in the Asian region and the eighth largest in the world. Australia's market capitalisation on free-floating shares is greater than China's, double Hong Kong's and around four times the market capitalisation of Singapore. Our $1.6 trillion superannuation system is the fourth largest in the world and is a major driver behind Australia's globally significant funds management industry. This will grow to $7.6 trillion in funds, or 180 per cent of GDP, over the next two decades. We do not need to tamper with the pension. Australians provide for their own long-term requirements through their own efforts and their superannuation. We need to stimulate Australia. It is not a stimulus to reduce company tax by 1.5 per cent. Small businesses have no profitability so do not worry about paying tax. Without stimulating demand, there is no way that any tax incentive can work. The Australian government is the main practitioner of bankruptcy and company liquidations across Australia. As companies close, employees lose their jobs, the government loses group tax and people transfer from gainful employment to Centrelink. We need to protect the Australian people and their jobs. Let's protect what the country stands for. We need to have a chapter 11 like they have in the US: when companies fail, businesses continue so that people and families are kept in their jobs. We need to support regional Australia by introducing a zonal taxation system to decentralise Australia and maximise the growth in regional areas. Japan has become the world's third largest economy by processing Australian resources. The cost of energy in Japan is more expensive, and Japan suffers the tyranny of distance. Wages are higher. (Time expired) Brorsen, Ted and Lise 88 21:20 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan They were lovers. I repeat: they were lovers. Ted and Lise Brorsen arrived from Denmark in 1969 with Dorthe and Heidi, with a dream and vision for them and their family. Shaun arrived in 1977, and the family was complete. Most recently at their beautiful home near Wonthaggi in Victoria, Ken Mitchell and I sat with Ted Brorsen at a time when the horrible disease that was afflicting him was taking him over, and even then Lise had cooked him a Danish bread, which we shared with very special coffee as we spoke to him. Outside the door were other people waiting to visit him while we were sitting there enjoying this time. Motor neurone disease is a horrible disease, and Ted had made such a contribution. He started work at William Angliss in 1969, and he and Lise turned up in their green Holden and met fellow Dane Mogens Jensen. That was the start of a 40-year friendship which endured to this day and a seven-year stint as production manager. Over the next 20 years, the name Tabro was born, with boning rooms at Laverton and Braeside and a factory in Dandenong which developed the mayonnaise and bromelaide products. This guy had a terrific sense of humour. He was the head of Tabro Meat at Wonthaggi. He created the place. He built it up. He grew it. It has now been sold on to another company. But Ted Brorsen was the one who was out there who drove the whole explosion. He hated red tape. He hated men in white coats. He hated people who told him what to do. He was a typical Dane. He was a Viking. You can never talk about Ted without talking about Lise. She was also in the photographs that they showed at the very large gathering at his funeral that included all sorts of people from all walks of life who were there to honour him after his passing. It was a place worth being. All of those people had been touched at some time by Ted's sense of humour or had received a pat on the shoulder from the inclusive person that he was with his staff and friends. He was that way not only with the senior staff but with the workers on the floor of the abattoir. We had all been part of the amazing journey in one form or another. We had all, to a lesser or greater degree, been touched by this wonderful man and equally by Lise. Ted often spoke of the difficulties in doing business in Australia, whether at a state, federal or local government level. As the federal member, he often called me out. He would complain bitterly about our regulations in this country and how they were holding back his business. But he had an amazing export business which he grew out of a small one. He could turn his hand to anything. It did not matter what he tried, he did it with expertise and style. He is a man who is going to be sorely missed by his community, because there is not one community group you can list in the Wonthaggi and broader district that he has not helped. He had a close association with Ken Smith, the MLA at the time, and me as the federal member for the area. This was a man who drew people to him. Wherever Ted and Lise went as a couple, people lit up around them. Their hospitality in their beautiful home and garden out at Wattle Bank was something to be seen. I do not know who looks after those gardens, but they are magnificent. We have been blessed by the fact that this man lived and that he came to Australia. He was a huge success story. I know this man will live on in our hearts and minds and memory. He has passed, but he will live on. His wife is now determined to let me as her federal member know just what we should be doing about motor neurone disease. I say to you, Lise, and to your family: one day we will find a cure for motor neurone disease and you will be one of the inspiring people who drove this nation in that direction. Charlton Electorate: Carbon Price 89 21:25 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton Tomorrow in Newcastle an end-of-project celebration will be held to mark the successful conclusion of the Energy Hunter program. Newcastle City Council, the Hunter Business Chamber and Hunter TAFE came together to develop this program which provides businesses with a range of cost-saving information and tools to better manage their energy consumption. In the two years since its launch, 350 small- and medium-sized businesses have benefited. They have learned ways to reduce the amount of power they use, which ultimately saves them money on their power bills. Collectively, more than $1.1 million has been saved by local businesses through this program, resulting in 4,200 fewer tonnes of carbon pollution being emitted each year. I congratulate the work of the council, the chamber and the TAFE for their efforts in delivering this excellent project. Energy Hunter was one of a range of measures funded through the former Labor government's carbon price. The project received over $1.3 million through the Energy Efficiency Information Grants scheme. The Save Watts initiative by the Lake Macquarie Business Growth Centre was another similar project that received funding through the carbon price. In fact, more than $8 million was spent in the Hunter region for projects of this kind. A range of Hunter councils and businesses shared in this funding and used it to improve their energy efficiency in buildings and community facilities. This was all funded by the carbon price. So, whilst my colleagues in the Hunter celebrate the conclusion of an outstanding program tomorrow, I ask them to acknowledge the unfortunate fact that there will be few more programs like it. This Liberal government has an embarrassing record when it comes to investment in clean energy technology and energy efficiency. The abolition of a market based carbon price is one of the most backward moves made by a First World economy in recent history. Whilst the rest of the world, including China and the United States, are putting a price on pollution, we are abolishing ours. Yesterday in Senate estimates it was revealed that, of the 144 projects awarded contracts under the government's so-called Emissions Reduction Fund auction, all but 37 of them were pre-existing projects funded through the now-defunct Carbon Farming Initiative. From these 37 new projects, an additional 10 million tonnes of abatement has been secured—but the outlay from the government is an extra $660 million. Only this coalition government could congratulate themselves on turning a polluter-pays model into one where the taxpayer foots the bill. Only this Prime Minister could travel the country for years on end spreading untruths and fear about a carbon price that started at $23 per tonne and was due to fall to around $8 per tonne and then develop a policy that pays $66 per tonne to polluters for the same thing. Investment in renewable energy has virtually collapsed under the Abbott government because of their refusal to commit to an adequate renewable energy target. Meanwhile, investment around the world has grown exponentially. For no other reason than their ideological opposition to clean energy, the Prime Minister and this Liberal government have recklessly sent Australian jobs overseas. The Hunter is home to researchers, designers, manufacturers and workers in the sector who have been impacted on by this. Recently, I met with stakeholders from my region. They warned me in no uncertain terms that the uncertainties around the RET negotiations and the government's clear intention to reduce support for renewables is having a negative effect on investment in their industry. They tell me that it was not just the RET review that hurt their business but that investment in the Australian market stagnated months before the election of this coalition government from those who could see the writing on the wall. These same businesses tell me they have been forced to make long-term, experienced staff redundant as a result. As a country, we cannot afford to lose these skills and this knowledge to our offshore competitors. That people are losing their jobs in what should be a flourishing industry is regrettable. That it is as a direct result of the government's refusal to negotiate in a productive way is utterly shameful. Labor have taken the pragmatic approach of negotiating a compromise on the RET with this government and have pledged to increase it to a more ambitious level in government. Importantly, we will do this in consultation with the industry and finance sectors. Debate interrupted. House adjourned at 21:30 NOTICES 90 NOTICES

Tuesday, 26 May 2015

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) took the chair at 16:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 95 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Live Animal Exports 95 16:00 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise today to discuss an issue of great importance to many people I represent, namely the live export trade. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I represent an electorate in outer metropolitan west and north-west Sydney. Over this term and my previous term, I can say that one of the most consistent issues on which I receive representations is this very matter. We have most recently seen the sickening allegations of abuse of animals exported to Vietnam. These reports include allegations that Australian cattle are being clubbed to death with sledgehammers in Vietnamese abattoirs. These shocking claims have disturbed many Australians, including many of my constituents, who have most recently voiced their outrage with these reports. My constituents are frustrated at the regular instances of abuse and what they believe to be a lack of action being taken to hold people to account for such abuse. When in government, Labor established the strongest live trade and animal standards in the world. The key element is the Export Supply Chain Assurance System, which monitors and regulates the movement of livestock along the supply chain. But more needs to be done. The Abbott government should be on notice: Labor will not support any watering down of this system. Changes which undermine the integrity of this system are unacceptable. Labor also remains committed to the appointment of an independent inspector-general for animal welfare and live animal exports, as announced pre election but dropped by the Abbott government. As well as this, the government recently tried to remove the statutory position of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity, the independent cop on the beat. The shadow minister, the member for Hunter, has written to the minister requesting a briefing on these alleged breaches of the system in Vietnam and, more importantly, what actions this government is taking in response to these allegations. Frankly, my constituents have had enough of these reports of abuse. Just as an example, last week I spoke with Karen Johnson of Kings Langley, one of many local residents who are fed up. Karen rightly asked why it always seems to be animal rights organisations who find out about his abuse and, it seems, never the industry. It is a fair question, and I call on the minister to prioritise the investigation into these latest allegations and demonstrate that those who are found to be breaching the system will have penalties applied to them. We need transparency, and I believe the minister should be providing regular reports to the parliament on this issue, irrespective of the government of the day. This abuse simply cannot continue to occur. My electorate has had enough, and so have I. The lack of accountability and penalties is a deep source of frustration. Time and again, these instances of abuse are being uncovered. I have no confidence this latest instance will be the last, and neither do my concerned constituents. Robertson Electorate: Roads 95 16:03 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I am pleased to rise today to speak about how this budget is responding to the concerns of people on the Central Coast. One of the biggest issues that are always raised with me when I am out and about, speaking with people, is the importance of good-quality local roads. Sadly, all too often on the Central Coast, we see that the conditions of local roads need to be improved and upgraded. I hear it when I am out talking with the Copacabana Progress Association—and I was pleased to support their petition with President Matthew Hill—or with the Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, who have been campaigning for better roads on the peninsula for years. When I look at my Facebook page, I see comments from people such as Anthony from Umina, who said, 'Sydney people are moving here en masse, and infrastructure here is at a 1960s level.' When I returned the call of Stephen from Daleys Point, he said to me, 'We really need to see better local roads here.' This budget is helping to deliver better roads for the people of my community. One of the most important commitments on local roads that we made in the lead-up to the last election was to help improve an accident-prone area at the corner of Langford Drive and Woy Woy Road at Kariong. It is something that local residents have been telling me they wanted to see fixed—without seeing it fixed—for way too long. I worked with them. We doorknocked and got 3,000 signatures on a petition that called for funding for this road. I am pleased to say that there is $675,000 in the budget committed to helping Gosford City Council make this happen. The Black Spot Program is an important program that targets dangerous sections of local roads. This budget confirms $1.6 million of road funding for black spots in Robertson, which is on top of the funding that has already been delivered for Narara Valley Drive and for Avoca Drive at Kincumber. Some examples of how this funding will be used in Robertson include the installation of safety barriers on the Central Coast Highway at East Gosford, at Avoca Drive in Green Point and in other suburbs as well, including Umina Beach, Gosford and Woy Woy. These are all examples of how our government is working to improve local roads in our community. On top of that, we also saw a doubling of funding for the Roads to Recovery program, which also helps local councils meet local priorities. I am pleased to see that we have doubled the Roads to Recovery investment for the next financial year. That means that Gosford City Council will receive $1.9 million—almost $2 million—in 2015-16. I think that is fantastic and I know it is appreciated by local councils. It allows them to direct local road funding to local suburbs and roads where it is most needed. Up the road a little further we of course have NorthConnex. Funding of $405 million has been committed to ensuring that this important missing link is built—a link that will help commuters and families in my electorate. Marine Rescue Lake Macquarie 96 16:07 Ms HALL 83N Shortland On Tuesday, 19 May, I attended a presentation of medals at Marine Rescue Lake Macquarie. Before going into details of that event, I want to say for the record how valuable the work that Marine Rescue do in Lake Macquarie is. Shortland electorate is nestled between lakes and the ocean. Marine Rescue, both on the Central Coast and in Lake Macquarie, do a valuable job. They keep the waterways safe, they go out into the ocean when boats get into trouble and, during the horrendous storms we had at the end of April, Marine Rescue were there helping people in distress and working on the lake to try to salvage boats. On the 19th I was very privileged to give some awards to people like John Hatton, who received his Marine Rescue 10-year service medal. He is a Marine Rescue Master. He served with the flotilla at Swansea prior to the amalgamation and is a stalwart of the organisation. Another award went to Peter Skinner, who joined the Swansea coast guard on 8 November 1994. He is a radio trainer and was deputy flotilla commander for several years. He was presented with a 20-year service clasp and a certificate recognising his long service. Then there was Malcolm Watson. He joined the Swansea coast guard on 12 August 1999. Because of his interest in radios, he became the radio guru for his team and has been of great benefit to the organisation. He has held positions on the executive of both Marine Rescue and the coast guard. Richard Jarman is the organisation's old man of the sea. He joined in 1953 and has been active in the organisation for many years. He was presented with his national medal recognising 15 years of service to the boating community. Nola Ellis received her 25-year clasp. In 1964, whilst working for the Sydney City Council, Brian Davies joined the civil defence organisation which later became the SES. Brian joined the local Marine Rescue after reading an item in my newsletter. He was presented with 35- and 45-year clasps for his national medal. I commend this organisation for its fine work. Gippsland Electorate: Australian Securities and Investments Commission 96 16:09 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I appreciate the opportunity to update the House on a community issue within the Latrobe Valley regarding the future of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. It has come to my attention that ASIC has spoken to staff in Traralgon in the past week regarding some redundancies. Up to 10 ongoing positions will be made redundant along with 20 non-ongoing positions after 30 June this year. It is always disappointing for anyone to lose their job under any circumstances, but I share the pain and disappointment of the ASIC staff who will not be continuing with the organisation in the months ahead. Being in government does present some tough decisions, particularly when the current government has had to clean up the mess left behind by the former Labor government. That has meant some tough decisions where, unfortunately, the ASIC budget over the forward estimates is going to be reduced by $10 million to $15 million and some efficiencies are being made in the Traralgon ASIC operations. But I want to stress that the vast majority of staff will be continuing at the ASIC office in Traralgon in the immediate and for the long-term future. The people who have been made redundant, I understand, will receive their full entitlements, and I hope they will have the opportunity to access jobs locally wherever it is possible. There is a separate issue that I want to raise in relation to ASIC—and it must be stressed that these are separate issues. There is the discussion about the future management and operation of ASIC following the finance minister's budget announcement that there will be a competitive tender process undertaken in the next 12 to 18 months to test the capacity of the market for a private operator to upgrade and operate the ASIC registry in Traralgon. There are in the order of 300 people who will be directly affected by this discussion in the broader national debate, and I will be working with my community to make sure that they are well served in this place. I understand very clearly what the role of a local member is in that regard. Just as I stood up for the Hazelwood power station workers—the 550 workers that Labor wanted to sack under the contract for closure—and just as I am standing up for the 1,000 Australian paper workers' jobs by campaigning with the member for McMillan, my good friend Russell Broadbent, and urging government agencies to purchase locally made paper, I will be standing up for the local jobs associated with ASIC in Traralgon and strongly representing the views of my community in this place. The ASIC organisation in Traralgon contributes in the order of $60 million in wages alone to the regional economy. It is a vital part of the regional economy. I have said publicly, and I have said to the minister privately and to the department, that it is up to the government to make the case for this privatisation. The government and the department need to convince us and convince the community that it is a good idea. I have had meetings with the Minister for Finance over the past 12 months, the local council has had meetings with the minister as well, and we will be seeking another meeting with him to explain just how important ASIC jobs are to the Latrobe Valley community. I am very confident that, whatever form the operation and management of ASIC takes into the future, those jobs will remain in Traralgon. It is a very important business model. It utilises cheap rent in comparison to the metropolitan areas and a reliable source of staff who are experienced and capable of doing a great job for our nation. (Time expired) Suicide Prevention Australia 97 16:13 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt On Friday, 8 May, I was delighted to traipse down to the Westfield Fountain Gate shopping centre, which is, I think, the second largest shopping centre in this country, for a very special event that was being hosted by Fawn Brady and Jessica White from a wonderful organisation called Kane's Crusade. They were doing the Melbourne leg of the Plebs, Pros and Personalities 24 Hour Run at Fountain Gate. This event was being conducted to raise funds for Suicide Prevention Australia. This event coincided with other events held across the nation in places like Perth, the Gold Coast, Wollongong and Sydney. It saw members of the public, celebrities and professional athletes from across the country running against each other on treadmills for 24 hours. The event was created in Sydney three years ago by Ben Higgs and Matt Dee after being personally affected by suicide. Both men felt compelled to do something, and this was their response. They wanted to create an event that not only raised funds for Suicide Prevention Australia but raised awareness of the issue within the community. The Melbourne events saw appearances by Jane and Emma from Channel Seven's My Kitchen Rules, Australian champion boxer Sam Soliman and AFL champ Campbell Brown. There were many events surrounding this: face painters, balloon artists, local bands and singers, online auctions and great presentations by local martial arts experts. It was a wonderful event, in which some of my staff participated. The two young women who organised this event really are committed to raising awareness about the devastation caused by suicide in our region. We have been affected by it profoundly. The event which was conducted by our two young ladies raised $5,059, and the event raised over $80,000 nationally. It has built on more than $150,000 that has been raised since this event began. The key thing is that what these two young people are doing is making it acceptable to talk about suicide prevention in this country in a way which makes men in particular feel comfortable about doing so. They are doing a great job. I noticed that a lot of people came and were talking to everyone involved, and there were tons of volunteers, too many to read their names out. The fact that this event was being conducted at Westfield meant that it got a lot of community attention and a lot of enthusiastic participants. People were literally walking off the street, wanting to participate, wanting to learn more. Actually having that conversation in a safe environment about the impact of suicide on the community and what can be done to prevent it is quite extraordinary. It is a testament to two young women and also to the management of Westfield Fountain Gate, who made their centre available for 24 hours for this community based campaign. I hope this event continues for long years, and I commend everyone involved in the event. Ryde District Historical Society, Centenary of Anzac 97 16:16 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I rise to inform the House of the wonderful contribution made to the Bennelong electorate by the Ryde District Historical Society. Based out of Willandra, an early settlers cottage, over the last 54 years, they have explored and opened up the rich history of the local area. Like many other organisations in my electorate, the society received an Anzac Centenary grant from this government, which was dedicated to the creation of the definitive source on Ryde's involvement in World War I. Their book Ryde Goes to War is the result of this effort. It is a compendium of such range that I am amazed at the results and cannot comprehend the effort that must have been involved in its compilation. Two thousand men and women from Ryde joined our armed forces between 1914 and 1918. This is a staggering proportion from just 3,500 dwellings in the area at the time. This book has named each one of these soldiers and the rank, file number and status for the overwhelming majority. But, staggeringly, it has also dedicated between one and two pages to a brief biography of over 200 soldiers and nurses, many complete with photographs. These biographies reach deep into history to provide fine details of the diggers' lives. You can read about the Elliot twins, who found themselves in different hospitals on different fronts, one with disease and the other wounded by bullets, or about Matron Bessie Pocock, a Boer War veteran who volunteered in 1914 and presided over a hospital ship in the retreat from Gallipoli. Louise Markus is the member for Macquarie. Her grandfather TG Tyrrel is in the book. The tales describe the rich variety of Anzac experiences and were compiled over four years of painstaking work. Resources included memorials, newspapers and memories of loved ones. The book represents a colossal effort from all involved, and I heartily congratulate its authors on their valuable contribution. They have provided a copy of their publication to every school in the area, which will provide an incomparable resource in the years to come. The book focuses on the local connections of these soldiers, and students will be able to read about diggers who went to their school or lived in their street. They can find commonality with their lives that will make this vital piece of Australian history come alive. Every year, we promise that 'we will remember them'. While we honour their collective sacrifices, we have a very limited understanding of who 'they' were and what drove them, inspired them, scared and scarred them. This book answers these questions and ensures that the memory of these brave Australians will live forever. Same-Sex Relationships 98 16:19 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Many of my constituents were overjoyed at the overwhelming vote in support of marriage equality in Ireland at the weekend. This means that at least 20 nations support marriage equality, including the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. It is now time for Australia to join the nations which have recognised that people should be allowed to marry the person that they love. Institutions, just like society's values, evolve over time. Only 22 years ago homosexuality was illegal in Ireland; now, marriage equality is a reality. When I introduced a private member's bill in my first term in parliament, to give same-sex couples equal rights on superannuation, it was seen as a radical proposition. The Howard government even prevented it going to a vote but, by the time the Rudd government removed discrimination on the basis of sexual preference in more than 80 pieces of legislation, it carried the parliament with broad support and without controversy. Giving one group of people the rights that they have been denied does not in any way diminish the rights that currently exist for the rest of us. I fail to see how the institution of marriage is weakened if more people have the right to participate. I strongly believe that there should be a vote in the parliament this year and that it should be a conscience vote. That would enable parliamentarians to have a mature debate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Whilst I have strong views in support of marriage equality, I respect those who hold a different view. You cannot promote diversity and tolerance whilst not showing tolerance for those who disagree with you. I have argued consistently that the coalition needs to allow a conscience vote on this issue and it is inconsistent to argue something different within the Labor Party. In 2002, as a member of the ALP national executive, I dealt with a unanimous report that resolved the issue surrounding the use of conscience votes in a process that included Labor's pre-eminent authority on our internal history and precedent, John Faulkner. There have been conscience votes on a range of issues over the years, including the family law bill, euthanasia, and the marriage bill. The ALP national executive decided unanimously: The most appropriate model is the case-by-case, political model, but with consideration and tolerance of other factors relating to religion, the party platform and precedent. As the document says, 'These types of questions are not easily resolved in the party room, so conscience votes provide a way in which divisions over contentious social or moral issues can carry over into the parliament without adverse repercussions for those who differ from the majority view.' There is also a pragmatic reason to argue for a conscience vote across the parliament and it is this: it is my judgement that there are now majorities in favour of marriage equality in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. There is therefore no argument to delay this reform. Let's get this done. (Time expired) Family Violence 98 16:22 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan While I support the member for Grayndler in his call for a conscience vote on same-sex relationships, I will be opposing his substantial position. Darren Chester, the member for Gippsland, and I have been trying to change the culture of our electorates in regard to violence against women, family violence, and violence against children. In Victoria we have on-the-spot notices issued by police that are called family violence notices. They remove the perpetrator from the scene of the incident. This is able to be done by the police on the spot. I am going to table the documents because I do not have time to read them all. The police can apply for a family violence safety notice if someone needs protection. The safety notice can protect the affected family members before an intervention order application is heard in court and a police officer can only apply for a family violence safety notice if they believe that a respondent is an adult. The police cannot issue a notice against a person under 18. A safety notice can protect. What I am calling for today is, at the next COAG meeting, for these family violence notices to be set in the process of becoming law right across Australia so that it is not the women and children who are moved out of the home in this case but the perpetrator. Family violence is not something that you read about happening to somebody in a newspaper somewhere, who is some other woman or some other family. The violence affects not only the person attacked but the children of the person, the state of the household and the physical state or the mental state of the person being attacked. It affects those who have to, No. 1, care for the situation that is put in front of them—for example, those people who care for those who have been damaged when they turn up in hospital or other care units. Family violence costs millions of dollars across Australia. We cannot afford this to go on any longer. That is why I am calling for this great south land to join together at the next COAG conference to change the culture of family violence in this nation, especially violence against women, by introducing these particular family safety notices right across this nation. It is uniform. It will say that the police, under these provisions, which I am about to ask to be tabled, can walk in and say to the perpetrator, 'Mate, you are out of here and you do not come back until you have been to court. They can do their best to find you a place.' So I ask, Acting Deputy Speaker Wicks, if these documents I have in my hand may be tabled. Leave granted. Mr BROADBENT MT4 I table the documents. Canberra Electorate: National Sorry Day 99 16:25 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Before I start, I would like to commend the member for Grayndler on his incredibly powerful speech that he delivered just now on marriage equality. I particularly commend him for his discussion on his reasons on why he supports a conscience vote. I share his views on the conscience vote and I commend him for that speech. It is unfortunate that the member for McMillan has gone because I would like to commend him as well for his continued sustained stance on family violence. I have only been in this place for one and a half terms, but every time I come to this chamber he seems to be making a speech on family violence, condemning those that engage in it and advocating zero tolerance. I do commend the member for McMillan for once again taking a strong stance on this issue. I rise today to recognise National Sorry Day. In doing so, I wish to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land we are meeting on, the Ngunawal people. I also wish to acknowledge and pay my respects to their continuing culture and the contribution they make to the life of this city, of this region and to my electorate. The 26th of May is a significant day for Australia. It marks the day when we as a country recognise the wrongs that have been committed on our Indigenous people. It came about in response to the Bringing Them Home report, which detailed what occurred to the Stolen Generation and acknowledged the forced separation of Indigenous children from their families. Today it is about so much more than just admitting fault. National Sorry Day is about sending a powerful message that we care about and recognise the hurt that has been caused. It is about remembering our past so that we can achieve a brighter future. Even though National Sorry Day was first marked in 1998, it has never been so important to recognise the day and its significance as it is now, and my electorate agrees. Last Friday, more than 1,500 people took part in the National Sorry Day bridge walk here in Canberra. It was the biggest local turnout in the event's history. Just five years ago only 12 people took part in the event, so it was amazing to see how it has grown in such a short amount of time. Even children were taking part. I believe it is important that young children understand and recognise National Sorry Day and also National Reconciliation Week, which starts tomorrow. The week is about bringing together Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to share our stories and, most importantly, to understand each other. It is about recognising that Indigenous disadvantage remains a serious problem right across this country. It is about recognising the need to close the gap. It is about recognising the need to properly fund great organisations like Winnunga in my electorate. I have been very fortunate to visit Winnunga on a number of occasions and it has played a pivotal role in enhancing Indigenous health in Canberra and in the region. National Sorry Day is incredibly important and I believe so many Canberrans— (Time expired) National Security: Citizenship 99 16:28 Mr SIMPKINS HWE Cowan Today I speak on the issue of citizenship and my strong endorsement of the immigration minister's and the government's determination to act on the need to revoke the citizenship of those involved in terrorism. I certainly endorse this measure and the ability to revoke the citizenship of even those who may only have Australian citizenship but can claim another through the country of birth of their parents. The minister should have discretion to take those citizenships away. When I moved my motion on this issue back on 14 July 2014, I outlined a number of amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act and I hope the government will also make those amendments in the coming legislation. I have no doubt that there is very wide support for this measure. My petition on the revocation of citizenship was well supported and I know that my Victorian colleague Michael Sukkar, the member for Deakin, also found strong support in an online petition. Although I first raised this issue in my address-in-reply speech on 18 November 2013, those that try to suggest that this proposal is racist should be aware that on 5 July 2014 I made a speech in the Murray Street Mall of Perth where I told a group of 300 members of the Iraqi community of this proposal. It was very well supported by them as they hate radicals as well. Those that do try to derail legitimate debate in this country with their moral trump words of racism or Islamophobia should get out more and speak with the migrant communities for something of a new approach. Support for this action is strong and it is broad across recent migration communities and with those that have been here for a longer time. I endorse the ability to revoke citizenship. It is a good measure and its time has come. I would also say that just recently, on 25 May, I submitted another proposal regarding citizenship. This time I proposed a change to the citizenship ceremony preamble. I hope this will also encourage debate on this subject as well. It is my view that the preamble is currently too much of a restatement of the pledge. I believe that it should be a clearer statement on what citizenship is about. The preamble I propose as a basis for debate is: Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia. Every Australian citizen has rights and protections, but also serious responsibilities. Persons on whom Australian citizenship is conferred accept these obligations: (a) loyalty to Australia, its people and laws above all other nations, peoples and laws; and (b) commitment to the Australian democratic model of government and renouncing all other systems, be they political or religious; and (c) to respect the rights and liberties, of all people regardless of gender, race or religion, as all are equal before the law as Australians. This proposal represents a reminder of the foundations that built this country and the expectations we have. I also think, just as a broader approach, that it would be a good thing that at each Australia Day ceremony each year and at every citizenship ceremony, existing citizens should also join with new citizens in saying the pledge. I think that would be a positive thing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the member for Cowan. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 100 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2015-2016, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2014-2015, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2014-2015 100

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2015-2016

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2014-2015

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2014-2015

Second Reading 100 16:32 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell It is wonderful to know that two of these participants have now secured employment. This is a common result that I have seen from our local Work for the Dole projects since Minister Hartsuyker visited Dobell back in May 2014 to launch the government's reinvigorated Work for the Dole scheme. Commonly when I ask participants the question, 'Where would you be if not participating in Work for the Dole?' I receive the answer, 'At home on the couch.' You will find no stronger advocate for the Work for the Dole program than the participants themselves. I would like to give particular thanks and credit to Mr Andrew Smith, who oversaw the initial rollout of the Work for the Dole program on the Central Coast over the past 12 months. I look forward to seeing the Work for the Dole program continue to grow in Dobell and provide greater opportunities for local job seekers. During the minister's visit we met with Mr Tony Mylan, the CEO of ET Australia. Tony said: Our recent meeting with Assistant Minister Hartsuyker in Wyong, where the Budget measures were discussed, has provided ET Australia the hope that we can deliver a range of activities for Central Coast young people so they can more successfully transition to work. This demonstrates that the government's measures will make a positive impact on the Central Coast. In addition to the successful Work for the Dole program, the government is helping Australian small businesses to create more work experience opportunities for Australia's unemployed, particularly young people and maturer workers. Minister Hartsuyker and I visited Donna, who owns and operates Lakes Office Choice at Tuggerah. Donna's small business employs 10 people. She openly shared her previous experiences with engaging young work experience workers and the difficulty it had placed on her as a small business operator. The government recognises the red tape impost associated with work experience positions and will provide $18 million over four years for approximately 6,000 job seekers to undertake valuable work experience for up to four weeks while they continue to receive income support. As a result of both Work for the Dole and work experience programs, it is our hope that job seekers will gain the confidence and experience to transition into work. Programs such as these are expanding upon the investment that we have made in the field of apprenticeships. Speaking with the team at Central Coast Group Training, who operate a youth skills and employment centre, we were informed that in the week following the federal budget they had placed the highest number of apprentices in six years. This demonstrates the confidence of local businesses who acknowledge that the government is on the right path, creating prosperity and the opportunity for business operators to host an apprentice or trainee. Not only is the Central Coast a beautiful place to live, raise a family and work it is also a beautiful place for retirement. This budget is not only supporting Dobell's families and job seekers but also it is delivering certainty for our senior Australians in their retirement. I am pleased to say that as a result of this government's budget measures approximately 90 per cent of Dobell's aged pensioners will see their pensions remain the same or increase to an average of $30 per week. Importantly, this is the support our aged pensioners deserve. And it is fair. All of this good work is fundamental to building a safe and secure Australia. Keeping Australians safe and secure is the highest responsibility of the government. I recently had the honour of joining Australian Defence personnel in the Middle East as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. My participation in the program reinforced my belief that Australia is the best country in the world. But we should never lose sight of the freedoms and liberties—and the sacrifices made by Australians over our century of war to provide us with the freedoms and values—we enjoy today. The security threat confronting Australia is real, and it is serious. This is why our national terrorism public-alert level was raised to high last year. All Australians witnessed the horror of the Martin Place siege, the attack on police officers in Melbourne and the foiled terrorist plots in the months since. We have all uttered the words, 'This doesn't happen in Australia.' Unfortunately, times have changed. This government has a strong record in maintaining Australia's national security. This government's success in stopping the boats and securing our borders should not merely be consigned to the history books. The challenge is ongoing. We must remain resolute in our determination to break the trade of people smugglers, to ensure that lives are not lost at sea. I support the government's commitment to Defence, national security and law enforcement. This is an important element of the budget. There is a substantial commitment of $35 billion in 2015-16 and we have committed $1.2 billion of new funding to address the threat of Daesh, foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq, and the dangers of home-grown terrorism. I support these measures wholeheartedly. We must continue to strive for a better future, complete with more opportunity and greater reward. I am confident we are on the right path. I hear it every day in my community. There is growing optimism amongst small businesses. I see first-hand our families feeling more secure about their work-life balance. Our pensioners are telling me that their interests and concerns are being addressed, and our community has faith that their government will protect them and their way of life. This is a great budget for a great nation. I look forward to continuing to deliver to the people of Dobell and the Central Coast. I commend the budget to House. 16:38 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley After last year's truly terrible budget that had impacted on so many people across the community and had demonstrated a failure by this government to honour the commitments it had taken to the election and people had voted upon—in the expectation that they would be delivered, but they were not—there was great expectation that this budget would, in fact, be better than the last. This has turned out to be nothing but a cruel hoax. It is a cruel hoax to the people I represent, in Western Sydney, and a cruel hoax to a lot of other people across the country. On so many levels, when you look at the life cycle from young people through to people who work through to people who retire, all continue to be affected by this budget. You should not judge the Prime Minister by his words, you should judge him by his actions. Do not judge him on the types of promises that were made leading into this budget, judge him by the outcomes that will be visited upon the people—particularly those I represent in this place—at every single level, starting with young people, particularly children. In my area, there are about 19,000 families that are dependent on family tax benefit part A and 17,000 on family tax benefit part B. On family tax benefit B in particular, what can be expected? When children reach the age of six, the expectation that parents had for some time that there would be some support to help them meet the cost of living in raising children is gone. Those cuts would take place. When people ask where Prime Minister Tony Abbott was when people needed help and support, he was nowhere. What happens when young children who have been affected by that type of thing go to school and want the opportunity to unleash their potential? Again, the Prime Minister said that this government was about unleashing the potential of Australians. Young Australians expected their potential to be unleashed and supported through, for the first time, a chance to change the way we fund education in this country and target need. In my part of Western Sydney—where we would have expected, rightly, support through the Gonski reforms for schools where there are young people in need—that funding has been cut. Billions have been cut from funding to schools. That was basically enacted last year in the budget, and this year it is continuing to have an impact in this second budget. There is no reversal or change whatsoever to that schools funding. Then you need to ask: where was the Prime Minister when young people and their parents wanted better support for schooling? The Prime Minister was nowhere in reversing billions of dollars in cuts to school education. The Prime Minister tells us he wants people to take the jobs that are there. No-one—simply no-one—walks up to a job, presents themselves and expects a job to land in their lap. They need to be able to have the level of skills required to undertake the job. Then you look, for example, at what this government has done to make people job ready, in terms of vocational education, and you see millions cut. So you need to ask the question: where was the Prime Minister when people wanted extra support and training to get the jobs that he claims are out there? He was nowhere to be seen. If you want younger people to go on to tertiary education and get the skills that we need to ensure that our economy keeps growing and that those people can go on to better lives—again, the Prime Minister said he was about unlocking potential—where was he on that? This budget continues to nurture at its heart the desire for $100,000 university degrees that would put university education out of reach for the young people of Western Sydney and families who are genuinely anxious about whether or not their young will be able to go on to university and whether their talent, not their parents' bank balance, will be the measure of whether or not they get into university. There is no chance under this budget, which again, as I said, maintains what was delivered in last year's budget, which is a type of higher education reform that puts higher education out of reach for young people in our area. Where was the Prime Minister when people needed support so that they could get into higher education? Nowhere to be seen. Where was the support for young disadvantaged people who had fallen out of school or fallen out of traditional avenues of support and who need targeted assistance, some help to be able to build their own life skills and then get into training and get job ready for, again, the jobs that the Prime Minister claims are out there? Youth Connections was cut in the last budget. Programs that would have supported, for example, Marist Youth Care in my area—who lost millions in funding to support young people in our area with the type of assistance that was required to get them back on track—are gone. Where is Prime Minister Tony Abbott when people in our area who want to get a job or get trained need that extra support to get them job ready? He is simply not there. Look at the jobs themselves. The Prime Minister claims that he wants to get people to take the jobs that are out there. The coalition promised they would create one million jobs, which was not based on any economic fact. This was, as has been discovered and revealed in the last 12 months, simply a number manufactured by the coalition going into the election, not supported by any evidence whatsoever. But we are told that one million jobs will be created. We later asked, 'Where are those jobs?' We are in a situation where the jobless figure is higher now than it was during the global financial crisis. Unemployment has been revised upwards and will stay above six per cent. Those jobs that the Prime Minister expects people to take up are simply not there. Where was the Prime Minister when people wanted jobs and wanted to be able to go into meaningful employment? Where is the Prime Minister and where is the evidence of jobs being there for people? They are nowhere to be seen. The Prime Minister believes, as we all do, that employment provides a much better avenue to economic prosperity than welfare. Yet where are we at with wages? Wages are growing at their slowest rate since records began, particularly in the case of the Reserve Bank. They are growing slowly—more slowly than has ever been experienced. It means that the types of pay increases that people would have been able to rely upon to fund the things that families need to pay for—getting the bills paid, making sure the kids go to school and taking the family holiday and the time away—are not there. Wages continue to grow at the slowest rate that has ever been experienced. What is the coalition's response to this? The coalition has elements that argue, for instance, that penalty rates should be cut. This is the answer to slow wages growth: to take money away from people. A government that refuses to support any application to boost low-income earners' wage increases through the Fair Work Commission will always oppose a wage rise for people when they want to be in employment. People want that employment to be meaningful and fund the type of lifestyle they have a right to expect. Where is the Prime Minister when people want to have fulfilling jobs that pay them well? He is nowhere to be seen. The people who are losing their jobs in this economy want to be able to turn to employment services to get them back into paid employment. But this government has completely shaken up the way that employment agencies are funded. We have seen a cut to the number of agencies being able to provide that type of support to people who turn to them for help when they need it most to get back to the workforce. The Prime Minister says he wants to put people into jobs. The people that can help those people get into jobs have been denied the ability to do so. Again I ask: where was the Prime Minister when people who wanted employment and wanted support needed that help? He was simply not present. What about people who are experiencing short-term or long-term healthcare problems and want to be able to get a quality level of health care—for example, in my part of Western Sydney? What did this government do leading into the budget? It cut the funds that were assigned to provide things like MRI machines in Mount Druitt hospital. That funding was cut in the first MYEFO of this government. It then continued to cut support to state governments that had already, for example, shut the cardiac ward at Mount Druitt hospital that was providing assistance to a part of Western Sydney that has some of the highest rates of heart disease in metropolitan Sydney. We have had our cardiac ward shut. In the last budget, the Abbott government cut funding to states for health care, and those cuts were not reversed in this budget. What has been the outcome? In the last week alone, Mount Druitt hospital advised that it will be cutting nursing staff who are providing health care for the people in our area. State budgets are now under pressure because they have been suddenly gazumped by a federal Abbott government that did not warn anyone and, in fact, promised there would be no cuts to health. Where was Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, when people in my area relied upon an adequate level of funding support for health care? He was nowhere to be seen. What will happen when low-income people who are in the workforce want to be able to save and put extra money aside in superannuation? There was a scheme in place to ensure that the government would make a modest $500 contribution to superannuation accounts so people would have their own savings to live off instead of the pension when they retired, or not draw on the pension as much. This co-investment by government, the low income superannuation contribution, was cut by this government. On the one hand it takes away support, a tax concession for low-income people, but on the other it refuses to make any changes to the taxation concessions provided to those people with superannuation accounts of $1.5 million. Those concessions, in total, will start to weigh down on government revenue to the extent that it will be higher than the pension bill faced by this country. This government refuses to tackle those concessions—its answer is to cut pensions, to cut concessions to pensioners and to change indexation for people in their retirement years who would rely upon the pension. Again, where is the Prime Minister when the people who are in the workforce want to save for their retirements and rely upon some support to ensure that they are not drawing on the pension, to the same extent, when they retire? The Prime Minister is simply nowhere to be seen. For those leaving the workforce who do not have adequate super—who made plans to get a pension—what happened? The Abbott government changed the pension-indexation arrangements and told everyone for the best part of a year that the pension would continue to rise, knowing full well they would cut the amount of income that pensioners would have. They cut the support to states and territories to extend pensioner concessions—costing pensioners $1,500 a year—and have continued that cut, not reversing that position. In retirement, when pensioners rely upon a pension and level of income support—that would not be there for superannuation, because they have been in the workforce too long—where is the Prime Minister for pensioners, in my part of the world or pensioners in other parts of the country? He is simply not there. Across all areas of Australian society, as I have indicated—for children, for young people, for people in the workplace, for families and for retirees—people are simply being affected, again, by this budget because it either fails to correct the terrible decisions made at the last budget or adds to the burdens already in place. It fails to meet the government's own test as to what it would achieve. It promised it would cut debt and the deficit. Both are up—debt is up and the deficit is up. And joblessness is up. We are seeing the impacts on the broader community as a result of this. There is no plan for the future and no plan for the jobs that we need to prepare for into the future. However—I would make this point—the PM is there for someone, when the need is clear, and he will act and change direction. He will do all sorts of things. He will switch from denying funds to showering funds. There is nothing he will not do for this person in a time of need and he will shape an entire federal budget around them, regardless of whether it conflicts or undermines their ability to meet their own commitments. That person is the Prime Minister himself. He is not there for children, he is not there for families, he is not there for workers and he is not there for pensioners. He is there for himself. This budget is a survival document for the Prime Minister, which robs from various people in our community to save his position. It demonstrates at its core how fundamentally shabby this budget is and how it denies people, particularly in Western Sydney, the fair go that they ultimately deserve. It is all about saving the Prime Minister and not saving the broader Australian community. 16:53 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore These appropriation bills make provision for moneys required to be appropriated from the consolidated revenue fund, as part of the 2015-16 federal budget, to fund the day-to-day operations of the Commonwealth. The budget forms part of the government's plan to build a strong and prosperous economy while funding the traditional functions of governments, such as health, education, social services and national security. As the Treasurer stated on budget night, this government inherited $123 billion in cumulative deficits. However, as a result of responsible budget measures, the projected cumulative deficit is expected to be reduced to $82 billion over the next four years. On a daily basis Treasury borrows $96 million just to pay the bills, down from the $133 million a day that this government inherited. This budget is not framed in isolation but rather in the context of an increasingly competitive economic environment impacted by international factors. In my home state of Western Australia the mining industry is experiencing volatility in commodity prices. Iron ore is Australia's biggest export, accounting for some 22 per cent of total exports. Western Australia is the major producer of iron ore, so the dual effects of a 40 per cent slump in the iron ore price and a marked drop in mining construction activity have slowed that state's economy. On current prices, the iron ore price slump is forecast to lead to a projected $2 billion shortfall in state government revenue from mineral royalties, prompting cost-cutting measures in the state budget. At a federal level, since the 2013-14 budget, the fall in iron ore prices has resulted in a $90 billion write-down in the forecast value of iron ore exports, contributing to a $52 billion reduction in forecast taxation receipts from the budget bottom line. It is in this context that the budget was framed. The national economic recovery must start locally. In each and every electorate across the nation there are local economic development projects which, when combined, will have a significant national impact. Opportunities for downstream processing and value-adding to our products must be explored. The construction of processing plants, refineries and smelters in our economy is preferable to exporting low-value raw commodities. To safeguard our economy against future cyclical shocks, there must be a renewed focus on diversification into other industries within the economy in order that we become less reliant on the mining industry. In the next five years, Australia is on track to become the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. If we could lift the value of our service exports—such as higher education, tourism, health care and financial services—to just half the level of our commodity exports, it would add $50 billion to our gross domestic product each year. Trade and investment with emerging economies in our region is the key to promoting economic development. Over the past year, there has been a 23 per cent increase in approved foreign investment applications in Australia. In order to maximise economic benefit, investment into research and development must by necessity be closely matched with commercialisation of Australian innovation, invention and technology. Greater competitiveness and productivity are required in order to succeed in the global marketplace. Commonwealth regulation is estimated to cost the Australian economy approximately $65 billion annually, equivalent to 4.2 per cent of GDP. Whilst a degree of regulation is necessary to ensure the orderly functioning of society, there are many cases in which overregulation is stifling the economy with bureaucracy and red tape. The business community has been making the case for years that the streamlining of our regulatory system is essential for greater productivity and to make the Australian economy more competitive internationally. The total deregulatory saving in reduced compliance costs since the election of the Abbott government in September 2013 is estimated at $2.45 billion. The budget contains $5.5 billion worth of initiatives designed to promote small business investment, growth and employment. More than 95 per cent of Australian businesses are eligible for the accelerated depreciation scheme on productive assets of up to $20,000 in value. This will encourage businesses to invest in plant and equipment and to raise output. The 1.5 per cent reduction in the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28.5 per cent brings the tax rate down to its lowest level in almost 50 years. Some 90 per cent of incorporated businesses, 780,000 small companies, will be eligible for this tax cut. In addition, a five per cent tax discount will apply for small unincorporated businesses, providing a tax cut of up to $1,000 for sole traders. The reasoning behind supporting small business is to take advantage of export market opportunities opened up by free trade agreements. There were 280,000 small business start-ups in 2013-14. Other measures to assist small business include an exemption from the fringe benefits tax for work related portable electronic devices. From 1 July 2015, expanded tax concessions for employee share schemes will enable employees to share in and benefit from the future growth and success of their business. In addition, removing obstacles to crowdsourced equity funding will help promote small business access to finance by increasing the availability of innovative sources of funding and lower compliance costs. To support our agricultural sector, the budget provides $300 million in drought assistance for struggling farmers. In addition to the small business tax cuts, accelerated depreciation is provided for investment in water facilities, fodder storage assets and new fencing. The budget provides for a $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which will seek to establish partnerships with the private sector and state governments of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland in providing concessional loans for the construction of ports, pipelines and electricity and water infrastructure. This latest initiative complements the $50 billion in infrastructure investment announced in last year's budget and is designed to open up northern Australia for business. In 2015-16, the government will spend $154 billion on welfare, which is around 35 per cent of total government expenditure. The current welfare payment system manages 40 different payments and 38 supplements. The Department of Human Services is responsible for delivering welfare payments through Centrelink to 7.3 million people annually. We have a generous welfare system to support those in our community who genuinely need support. However, we must encourage workforce participation and individual independence, in the spirit of enterprise and endeavour. As a nation, we can do much better than having one-third of the population dependent on welfare. The budget allocates $331 million to increase employment participation and provide the skilled workforce needed to build the economy, including $212 million earmarked for the youth transition to work program. To assist job seekers in the transition into the workplace, 6,000 places have been provided in the national work experience program, as has $106 million to provide intensive support trials for job seekers of all ages from disadvantaged backgrounds. Furthermore, $1.2 billion has been included in the national wage subsidy pool to counteract long-term unemployment. A family support package of $4.4 billion has been provided in the budget. It is estimated that up to 165,000 Australian parents have a willingness to return to work but find the cost of child care prohibitive. By providing families with childcare assistance, parents can return to the workforce, bringing skills, expertise and productivity back to the economy. The budget provides $44 billion for the age pension, which accounts for 10 per cent of all government spending. The age pension will continue to increase twice a year using the highest available indexation rate. Seniors who currently have a pensioner concession card will continue to be eligible for a concession card that provides the same benefits such as subsidised utilities, transport, bulk-billing and cheaper PBS prescription medicines. For self-funded retirees, there will be no new taxes on superannuation under the Abbott government. In addition, $17 billion has been allocated for the disability support pension. The inclusion of new medicines and treatments on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is at a cost of $1.6 billion to the budget. In addition, to develop new cures and treatments, the budget allocates $400 million per year to the Medical Research Future Fund over the next four years to fund medical research into the latest medical treatments for the future. Border protection and national security are top priorities for the government. The budget allocates an extra $1.2 billion for national security and $450 million to boost intelligence capabilities. In addition, the budget includes funding of $35 billion in the combined areas of defence, national security and law enforcement. The $31 billion allocated in the budget for defence spending puts it on a growth path to two per cent of GDP by 2023-24, which is consistent with our election commitment. A key tenet in the budget is the introduction of multinational anti-avoidance legislation, aimed at preventing multinational corporations using complex schemes to avoid paying tax. In particular, the 30 largest multinational companies are being targeted and compliance with the goods and services tax is being tightened to ensure it is paid on goods and services entering Australia from overseas suppliers. In my electorate of Moore there is a sense of optimism and opportunity about the budget. We have leading tertiary and vocational education and training facilities, including but not limited to the Edith Cowan University; the West Coast Institute; the Motor Trade Association training centre; Trades North; and the National Electrical and Communications Association training centre. Young and mature age residents alike can access the training necessary to equip them for employment. We have the developing Joondalup CBD, a business park, three marinas, several district commercial centres and a 1,000-hectare industrial area. There is capacity for local economic development to occur over the next few decades, with billions of dollars of investment and thousands of local jobs to be created. What is needed to succeed is a positive mindset, a willingness to acquire skills and participate in the workforce, and an enterprising attitude of making a go of opportunities. In summary, the budget should be viewed in the context of the prevailing economic and fiscal conditions facing our nation. It is a budget designed for those who are prepared to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them and to make a go of things. A number of reforms are contained in the budget, which will boost the national economy and restore business confidence, particularly in the small business sector. It is a fair budget that meets our social responsibility obligations, by providing assistance and support to those in our community who genuinely need it most, whilst encouraging those who are able to contribute to society into greater workforce participation. 17:07 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills. When you are handing down a budget, you make choices. You make choices about what kinds of services you think the Australian people are legitimately entitled to expect. You make assumptions about what kind of quality of life it is that we here in a rich country all deserve. Then you ask: how can we raise the money to pay for those services, in a way that most people would think was fair? A budget is a statement of your beliefs and values. It says what matters to you and it is an identification of who in Australia is deemed to be important and worth looking after. One thing that is crystal clear from this budget, as it was from the last budget, is that this is a government that is prepared to support the big businesses and fossil fuel lobbies that put them there and to turn their backs on everyone else. This budget locks in $80 billion of cuts to schools and hospitals that the states are meant to provide. This budget says: 'We would rather allow the likes of Gina Rinehart to keep getting tax breaks than to give state governments the money they need to ensure that every child has a good education and that everyone can go to a hospital whenever they get sick.' Let us make no mistake: not only is that something that the coalition ideologically believe in but they are doing it because they are trying to push the states into a position where the states themselves will ask to increase the GST. So gutless are the government that they will not even come out and state publicly their real position, which is that they want to see the GST increased. They are instead blackmailing the states by cutting their funding and forcing them to do their dirty work for them. It is a coward's budget, and it continues the cowardice from the last budget. It also locks in the massive cuts to higher education and universities that have been so roundly rejected by this parliament and the Australian people. The coalition, when they got elected, promised no cuts to education, and then they came out and said, 'We're going to cut funds to universities by 20 per cent, and we're going to force people to graduate with debts the size of a small mortgage if they want to go to university.' People rejected it and, instead of learning the lesson, the government are coming back and locking it in with this budget. So this budget continues all of the mistakes of the last budget that the government did not tell the Australian people about and that the Australian people are rightly angry about. But, worse than that, it takes the axe to the sectors of the economy in Australia that need support to grow. At some point, the rest of the world is going to tell us to stop digging, and, unless we have thought in this country about what life after the mining boom looks like, we will wake up in 15 or 20 years time to find that we are a hollowed-out, uneducated quarry. We need now to be getting behind the industries that will sustain us when the rest of the world stops digging, but all this budget can do is continue the 'dig it up, chop it down, ship it off' mentality that is going to sell this country short in the 21st century. What are we going to be able to do in our region and in the world to sustain ourselves in the 21st century? We cannot compete with China and India on wages, and nor should we try to. They are very different countries with, in many respects and in many places, a much lower standard of living, much lower support being given to people and much lower protection for people when they go to work to ensure that they come home safe. So we are not going to be able to compete with them on wages. At some point, digging things up and selling them is going to deliver less money than it does at the moment or has in the past. So what are we going to do? We are going to stand tall in the 21st century if we invest in our population, and that means investing in education, innovation, science and research. At the moment, under this government—under the Abbott government—we are spending less on science, research and development this year than at any time since they started keeping records in the late seventies. Spending on science, research and development is now at its lowest—at 30-year lows. Exactly the sectors that we should be boosting are now being cut. Then the cuts are continued in this budget. When we should be increasing spending on science and education, the government cuts $300 million from the Sustainable Research Excellence fund. That is the money that goes to support the people who are doing the research. It keeps the lights on and the buildings open and provides some of the equipment for the people who are doing the research. Cut this money and you are going to find scientists and researchers having to do more of their own paperwork and having less access to their offices and their equipment, and that means less research being done. If you want scientists cleaning test tubes, pass this government's budget. But if instead you want to support the people who support the researchers—the people who work in the offices in universities and research institutes—you increase the funding to them. But instead this government has cut it. It will also come as no surprise that the Treasurer did not mention climate change once in his speech. Apparently it does not exist. Other countries understand that it is one of the most fundamental economic challenges facing them. We are put on notice that, unless we get global warming under control, we can expect at the end of the century a 92 per cent decline in productivity in the Murray-Darling Basin and more money having to be spent dealing with the heatwaves and bushfires that we know will come. Unless you want to do that, you have to get global warming under control, but this government does not even mention it. It cut funding for climate measures from $1.35 billion in 2014-15 to $700 million in 2015-16 and then down to $500 million in 2016-17. That is this government's head-in-the sand approach to climate change. In the Energy White Paper they said that maybe we can keep burning fossil fuels and there are other applications for it, like carbonated beverages. Are you serious? The Energy White Paper's solution to climate change is to burn more coal and drink more lemonade. That is this government's approach to setting Australia up for the 21st century, where we should be growing a cleaner economy. Instead, they are going the other way. There are selling out not only our future but also our people, especially people who most need support. Key amongst those are parents—mostly mums. After spending time in the workforce, they take time out to have a baby. They need a decent amount of time to bond with their young child and then maintain an ongoing connection with the workforce. What does this government do? It comes along and says that the scheme in place, that was always intended to be a floor not a ceiling—a minimum standard of 18 weeks at the minimum wage, that you could bargain above with your employer—will be cut. The government says that we are not going to ask Gina Rinehart to pay a bit more. We are not going to ask the Big Four banks—that are making world-leading profits—to contribute a little more to the 'budget task', as they like to call it. We are going to ask mums and newborns. We are going to ask them to have less money in their pockets and less time at home, out of the workplace, so we do not have to go and stand up to the big end of town. When you look at the fact that eight out of 10 of the hardest-hit electorates by this PPL change are in non-government electorates, you understand what is going on. The true colours of this government are shining through. The Prime Minister feigned feminism in order to get elected. Now that is out of the way the brutal chauvinism of this government is shining through, and the attack on working women continues in this budget. The attack on young people continues in this budget as well. The government says that if you do not have a job—never mind the fact that there is almost 14 per cent youth unemployment; never mind the fact that in some regional areas youth unemployment is above 25 per cent and the jobs are just not there—if you cannot find a job that is not there and you are young they are going to make you go a month without any money at all. What does the Prime Minister expect someone to do when they are young, looking for their first job, and they cannot find it because youth unemployment is growing to a point where it has not come back to where it was before the GFC? When the jobs are just not there, why are you punishing people by saying you now have no income at all? More importantly, what do you expect a person to do? If they cannot find a job and they do not have any money, what do you expect them to do to survive? I am yet to hear an answer from the government about this. We know what will happen. Those of us who pay attention and work with those people on the front line in our community services, in our homelessness services and in our youth services, know. People will be homeless. People will find themselves doing things that they never thought they would have to do, just to get enough money to buy food. This government says in this budget that it is all about a statement of principles: 'We don't care.' They say it is a 'have a go' budget. It is a budget that has a go at young people. It is a budget that has a go at working women. It is a budget that has a go at the arts, with hundreds of million of dollars being cut. Also, the Attorney-General, George Brandis, decided that he is going to aggregate everything into his own personal fiefdom and decide what kind of arts is acceptable in this country and what is not. It has a go at aid as well. Australian aid is crucial for lifting people out of poverty around the world. If you think it is a good idea to lift people out of poverty you have to be prepared to put your money where your mouth is. If we look at other countries that are not the kinds of democracies—yet—that we would hope for, if we believe it is important to improve people's standards of living, as a wealthy country you would spend a bit of money to assist them to increase their standards of living and lift them out of poverty. That is what Australian aid is for. This budget continues its swingeing cuts to Australian aid. What is worse, it has targeted them. If you are an African country expect, on average, a 70 per cent cut to your aid budget. The cynical might say that Australia increased its funding to aid while the African countries' votes for the UN Security Council were up in question. Now that Australia has its place, we have just turned around to Africa and said: 'I'm all right, Jack. I don't care. We have our position. Thanks for your votes—and now we're going to cut your aid by 70 per cent.' It is just appalling. But, critically, from the perspective of the government's credibility, this is a budget that is built on a lie. Because day after day the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and all the coalition MPs come into this place and say, 'We are about small government. We are about lower taxes. You will always get lower taxes under us. We are about removing taxes.' And yet when you look at the Treasurer's boast that there is now a credible path to surplus, and you look up the back of Budget Paper No. 1, what do you find? What you find is that tax at the moment as a proportion of our GDP is 21.9 per cent. Which way is it going under this government? Next year, it is going to go to 22.3 per cent. The year after that it will be 22.7 per cent then 23 and then 23.4. So a 1½ per cent tax increase as a percentage of GDP is the so-called credible path to surplus. Now, as a member of the Greens, I am glad we are having a debate about raising the share of revenue in this country because it is a much better solution than taking the axe to health and education or asking people to pay more to go and see the doctor. But I will not take the sanctimony from the government whose own budget papers say we are on track to increase tax to GDP so that tax is 23.4 per cent when under Whitlam it was 20.3 per cent. This government is increasing the share of the tax take in this country to three per cent higher than it was under Gough Whitlam. So I will not take the sanctimony from this government about the need for cuts to health and cuts to education. There is enough money there. We could have more money if we had the courage to raise tax to the same level as under that arch Marxist, former Prime Minister John Howard. If we had the revenue at the same level as under John Howard, there would be an extra $30 billion a year to ensure that everyone could go to school, everyone could get a free education and there would be hospitals available for everyone. If we just did what John Howard did and raise tax to that amount, which this budget is probably on track to do; if we had the courage to stop subsidising Gina Rinehart and her like so they can buy cheap fuel; if we asked the big banks, which are making world-leading record profit, just to chip in a little more; if we reformed our super system so it could not be used as a tax haven and a tax dodge but instead used it to support people in retirement; and if we shut down the detention centres and instead processed people in the community, which would be much cheaper, then there would be enough money to make sure everyone in this country had a roof over their head, everyone could go to the school or university that they want to, which would be publicly funded and give them a good education, and no-one would ever be in trouble when they got sick and we would not have to take the axe to the people who can least defend themselves. 17:23 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It is indeed a pleasure to be able to stand and deliver yet another appropriation speech. This is potentially our best budget that we have ever delivered from a government's perspective. It is always an honour to follow the member for Melbourne, who gave a stirring speech, but omitted to mention—it was probably just a slight oversight in his delivery—the jobs package and a few of the instant write-off benefits that small businesses in my area will benefit from. For the benefit of the previous member, I would like to indulge in sharing with the chamber some of the benefits that this budget delivers for all Australians. But before I do, the previous speaker spoke about this budget. He mentioned that this budget leaves people angry. I have had the opportunity in the last week to spend an enormous amount of time with people in the small business sector in my electorate. They are far from angry. They are a group of people who have not been heard in the last 10 years. We respect the small business sector. Most of us on this side of the House come from some form of small business whether we were engaged in one or owned a small business or employed people in small business. We inherently understand that small business is the engine room of this economy and that small business is the vehicle for us to drive future growth, and future growth means more jobs. The previous speaker spoke about jobs and said that there were no jobs. If you go back through the Hansard, the jobs that the Greens propose into the future are full. There are 12 million green jobs that they allude to, 12 million green jobs that will be there in the future. I can assure you that the green jobs are not there at the moment in the magnitude that the previous speaker would like to have the room believe. He also spoke about science and technology and said that there had been cuts to future research, yet we put forward a future fund of $20 billion. It was opposed. Do not come to this place and complain about research being cut and then, when we put up funds specifically designed around research, oppose them, because it attacks your credibility. He spoke about jobs and asked what we are doing for our youth. What we are doing for our youth is something that will transform, hopefully, our unemployment data for our youth. The work for the dole program was an initiative that was first introduced by the Howard government. We have taken it one step further with our Work for the Dole program, encouraging businesses now to participate in reaching out to those long-term unemployed to bring them into the business, to give them real, live work experience in a working business, not some training camp, not out working for a council picking up rubbish, just to tick a box to say that they are now a holder of some class I certificate, but actually working in a real, live, operational business. It is those real-life experiences which will allow the small business sector to try before they buy with someone who has been long-term unemployed, and that creates the real linkages. That creates the opportunity for someone looking for a job to understand the importance of engaging with the public, getting out of bed early and being part of a team environment, knowing at the end of the day that they have put a decent day in, and going home feeling a valued part of their community. I know that both sides of the House would agree that they are the values for us to be a rich and prosperous nation—that those are the values we need to instil in our unemployed people so that they become valued members of our community. The best thing we can do for someone who is struggling to shift themselves from the current socioeconomic group of an unemployed sector into the workplace is to give them hope, and the way we do that is to try to stimulate our small business sector. In trying to stimulate our small business sector, we have to stimulate the economy. The $20,000 instant write-off was one of the ways that we proposed in this budget to do exactly that. The budget measure speaks to the fact that, despite the economic headwinds, we are fixing Labor's mess. We will help by making Australia strong and giving Australians more choice for their future, stabilising the nation's finances and reducing debt. This is a key to building a stronger economy and a better future for all Australians. Those on the other side of the House would think that it is some type of fiscal nirvana where you can continue to spend, with spending habits like we saw with the pink batts installation. We saw spending measures in the school halls. All of that was done on borrowed money. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 I did listen to you in silence. I do not understand that you would pay me the same respect, but I did listen to you in silence, in all fairness. We are about trying to service that debt. There will be those in this place who do not take any responsibility at all for the debt level that we inherited. If you do not believe us, take the word of Ken Rogoff. Ken was an IMF economist. Ken Rogoff is an economist at Harvard University. He forecast and he has put some data together which says that Australia's percentage of increase to debt was the highest of any OECD nations post the GFC, if you look at some of the other nations such as New Zealand, our closer trading partners, which did not have that level of stimulus, as to where their economy is now compared to where we are with reference to debt, stimulus and the way that their economy is recovering. There are some things in this budget that affect my local community, and I want to go particularly to the government's ongoing commitment to the Roads to Recovery program. The Roads to Recovery program is an appropriation that the federal government are able to send directly to local councils. Within my electorate of Wright, I have four council provinces: the Lockyer Valley, the Scenic Rim, parts of the Gold Coast and parts of Logan. There is a $350 million allocation, and it all turns to roads. Every cent of that goes to roads; there is no clipping of the ticket by a state government on the way through. It is a valued part of our local governments' funding regime. Also, we will continue to invest $60 million in the Black Spot Programme, and we are almost tripling the black spot funding for the next two years, with an extra $100 million being allocated in 2015-16 and then on to 2016-17. In that black spots funding, there are currently around 382 projects across the states. The other one I want to mention is the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme, with another $200 million. My local councils are taking advantage of that and doing roads that would fall out of the auspices of some of the other funding projects. That is delivering in spades for my communities. Also, I want to acknowledge the Bridges Renewal Programme, which is a $300 million investment over four years. That is fifty-fifty funding, where the feds pick up 50 per cent. They can cofund with local government on their existing maintenance schedules. In the Scenic Rim area alone, there are no fewer than 132 bridges in one shire in need of repair. If this funding is not tailor-made for my electorate, it is tailor received. It is truly a great program. I also want to acknowledge the Stronger Communities program, which is providing $45 million over the next two years to fund capital projects in local communities. With funding of $150,000 over the next two years, commencing in 2015-16, we will be able to support projects that deliver stronger social and economic benefits in Australian local communities. Funding under the National Stronger Regions Fund will begin from 2015-16 to support priority economic and infrastructure projects across Australia to ensure that we create more jobs and opportunities for our regions. One billion dollars is available for community projects over five years, with major focuses on strengthening our regions by improving the productivity, employment and workforce skills of Australians. Two hundred million dollars will be allocated in 2015-16. But, most importantly in this budget, the jewel in the crown for my electorate is an investment of no less than $1.285 billion in the Toowoomba Range crossing. The Toowoomba Range crossing sits at the western end of my electorate. From all accounts, it has gone through its due diligence process. We should be going to the tender stage directly after this financial year. Regretfully I inform the House that I think there have been 126 lives lost on the current range crossing. A capital investment like this will not only provide safer roads but also increase the economic benefit to the region, as that Toowoomba Range bypass provides a corridor for transport out of Brisbane going to Darwin and also down to Sydney. The current transport route through Toowoomba, from memory, has to go through 26 sets of stoplights through town. So it will also create an economic boost to the electorate of my neighbouring member, the member for Groom, who I know has worked tirelessly in that space. I say in wrapping up that this is a good budget, because it fulfils our commitment to have abolished the mining tax. It also fulfils our commitment to have abolished the carbon tax. So it is difficult to stand here and listen to those who would say that we are a higher taxing government. We want people to engage in the workforce. We want them to prosper. We want them to earn more money. We want them to shift from earning $50,000 to earning $60,000 to earning $70,000 and potentially to earning $100,000 or $120,000 per head. With that, they will make a greater contribution to our nation. When we as a government have serviced this enormous debt, as we will endeavour to do into the future, we will want those people to be part of our community and make that contribution, but it will be done under the auspices of our belief in smaller government, letting business get on with what it does best and encouraging people to go out and have a go. This budget does that: it encourages Australians to have a go. In this speech, I commend that to the House. 17:35 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari How are you, Deputy Speaker Irons? I hope you did not take too much notice of that rubbish you heard just a moment ago, with great respect to my colleague the member for Wright. I will come back to him shortly. I will use the first part of this speech on the appropriation bills to talk about a very sad event. Last Friday I attended a funeral at Mutitjulu, the township alongside Uluru. That funeral was for Kunmanara Randall, a man who was born on 10 September 1934 at Angus Downs station, not far from Uluru, in Central Australia. He died on 12 May this year. In 1970 he wrote what became, really, an anthem for the stolen generation: Brown Skin Baby (They Take Him Away). He was later part of several documentaries highlighting the issue of the stolen generation, the forced removal of Aboriginal kids. Kunmanara Randall himself, at the age of seven, was taken away from his mother and family under the then policy of forced removals, so he was himself a member of the stolen generation. He was initially taken to The Bungalow in Alice Springs, the old telegraph station used as an orphanage for Aboriginal kids, and later was sent to Croker Island off the coast of Arnhem Land. Mr Randall was kept in government institutions until he was 20, when, with his new wife and baby, he was banished for questioning the authorities, for raising issues around the welfare of those members of the stolen generation who were in the custody, effectively, of the state but in the care of the church on Croker Island. He subsequently moved to Darwin and later to Adelaide—working, studying and looking for his family and his country of belonging. After many years of seeking but not finding, he did finally accomplish his task. He found his roots and returned to his mother country at Mutitjulu, where he then lived. Mr Randall worked as an educator and leader in equal rights, land rights, environmental responsibility, Indigenous cultural awareness and preservation, and community development. During the period he lived in Darwin, he established several organisations, including a pony club, a boxing club and a folk club. He worked as a counsellor through the Methodist Uniting Church and led a country music band that worked in regional Aboriginal communities. Mr Randall helped establish Adelaide's Aboriginal Community College, served as a director of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Service and worked to establish Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander centres at the Australian National University, the University of Canberra and the University of Wollongong. In the late 1970s, Mr Randall earned widespread recognition for his anthem, his song—and I hope you have heard it, Mr Deputy Speaker; if not, I commend it to you—My Brown Skin Baby (They TakeHim Away). It is a marvellous, very emotive piece of music. It is a dreadful story but well told in this beautiful song. It focused national and international attention on the issue of the stolen generation. The song exposed the government's policy of stealing Aboriginal kids and opened the door for Indigenous storytellers and songwriters across the country. It led to the filming of a documentary by the same name which won the Bronze Prize at the Cannes Film Festival. Subsequently the Australian government stopped taking children away from their families. His lifelong efforts to retain Aboriginal culture and restore equal rights for all were recognised in 1999 when he was named NAIDOC's Person of the Year. In 2004, he was inducted into the Indigenous Music Awards Hall of Fame, recognising the historical significance of that classic song—and another: Red Sun, Black Moon. Mr Randall authored four books, including his autobiography, Songman, and three books for children: Tracker Tjuginji, Stories From Country and Nyuntu Ninti. He contributed his personal story of being stolen to the anthology Stories of Belonging: Finding Where Your True Self Lives, edited by Kelly Wendorf and published in 2009. In 2006, Mr Randall co-produced and narrated the award-winning documentary Kanyini. Kanyini was voted Best Documentary at the London Australian Film Festival 2007, winner of the Inside Film Independent Spirit Award and winner of the Discovery Channel Best Documentary Award in 2006. Mr Randall continued to write and teach throughout the world, presenting teachings based on the Anangu 'Kanyini' principles of caring for the environment and each other with unconditional love and responsibility. His tireless dedication called Indigenous people to reclaim their Aboriginal identities and regain lives of purpose so that the relevance of ancient wisdom to modern living is properly understood. Kunmanara Randall died earlier this month and, as I say, was buried last week at a very moving ceremony at Mutitjulu. My condolences go to his family. Sadly, though, it was during this last week that we learnt that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has terminated the contract for the delivery of link-up services by the Central Australian Stolen Generations and Families Aboriginal Corporation. Link-up services are funded by the federal government to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people separated from their families under past laws, practices and policies of successive governments to undertake tracing of and reunion with families. It is extremely disappointing that here, on National Sorry Day, and subsequent to the funeral of this wonderful man, there is still no indication of whether this money is going to be made available or to whom it is going to be given to provide these very, very important services. That brings me to the budget, which is clearly grossly unfair. We only have to look at the NATSEM modelling to demonstrates its unfairness. Nine out of 10 of the lowest income families lose under the Abbott government's second budget, while nine out of 10 of the wealthiest families benefit. I quote here from an article in The Australian from earlier this week: The NATSEM modelling showed the disposable income of couples with children, with household incomes of around $50,000 (those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution) would see a 7.1 per cent reduction in their annual disposable income by 2018. Those in the top fifth, with incomes of more than $120,000 a year, would see a 0.2 per cent increase. How could anyone not see this as being grossly unfair? The range of losses for single parents is similar. According to the article: The losses of income in the analysis overwhelmingly reflect policy decisions taken in last year's budget that are still budgeted to happen (even if they haven't been legislated yet). No-one, not even those with the rosiest glasses on the government benches, can see this as anything but an unfair budget. I noted the contribution of the member for Wright and his arduous defence—or ardent defence; it was arduous to listen to—of the government's budget. I am not sure what sorts of books people on the government benches read, but it appears that they do not read books about reality or the reality of the years that Labor was in government, the issues to do with the global financial crisis, the way it was dealt with and how those measures held Australia at a position so that we have such a strong economy. While there are cheap points often being scored by the government side about debt and deficit, this government has increased the debt, doubled the deficit and increased unemployment. That is the benefit of the Abbott government's first budget, which was a horror budget—and you know it was a horror budget, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons; not that I would say you were responsible for it. Let me say that it is very clear that all government members know what a horror budget it was, and they are now trying to say to the world that, somehow or another, this latest budget is something different. Well, it ain't because it still contains all of those measures from last year which are going to hurt Australian families. Just while I am on it, the member for Wright made much of the instant asset write-off. He knows, I know, you know – everyone in this parliament knows – that it was introduced by the Labor government and knocked off by the Abbott government. We have had a conversion in the road to Damascus, as it were, and a commitment to small business which sees the government reintroduce something that was introduced by Labor. Let me go quickly to the issue health, and Aboriginal health in particular. I notice that there are no dollars committed in this budget for the implementation of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan, which the government says it is committed to. There is no money made available to it, so I am not sure how that commitment could be evidenced in the way in which this budget has been framed. We know that somehow or another, magically, dropping off this year's budget was a figure of $4.5 million—I think it was $4.5 million—in last year's budget for the out years 2017-18 for the continuation of the trachoma eradication campaign. It does not appear in this year's budget. It is not in the forward estimates anymore. It has mysteriously dropped off. What does that say about this government's commitment to the elimination of trachoma  – Australia, the only First World country with trachoma? We are committed to getting rid of it by 2020 and this government says to us now that it is going to cease funding in 2016-17 and has taken away the commitment that was in the previous budget for 2017-18. Last year, of course – and I have spoken about last year's budget and its impact – we saw them rip out half a billion dollars from Aboriginal and Torres Islander funding and $160 million of that from Aboriginal health. That money has not been replaced. You have to ask yourself the question: what the hell is going on? We have seen the government talk bountifully about a $5 billion infrastructure loan facility in Northern Australia. No-one has explained to us how this will actually work, what the relationship is between this loan and the unreleased white paper on developing Northern Australia, the Abbott government's Northern Australia Strategic Partnership—which includes the Prime Minister, the premiers of Queensland and Western Australia and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory—or the Prime Minister's Northern Australia Alliance comprising Advance Cairns, Broome Future and the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce. There are no details at all about how this $5 billion loan facility will operate. Infrastructure Australia released an audit of Northern Australia infrastructure just prior to the budget. Its key message is that what is required in Northern Australia is a priority to maximise the efficiency of existing infrastructure, including maintenance backlogs. I am going to be running out of time shortly, but I want to talk about regional Australia in terms of funding. We heard today in question time that about 51 projects received, under the Commonwealth National Stronger Regions Fund, total funding applications worth $212 million. Only one from the Northern Territory was funded. Oddly, it was $4.8 million for a swimming pool in Parap, a wealthy middle-class suburb of Darwin. Regions have the potential to be the economic powerhouse for the Northern Territory with their cattle, mining and tourism assets, but they cannot do it without significant Commonwealth support. Of eight territory projects applied for under this funding proposal, one of them was the unsuccessful Roper Gulf Regional Council, which had already received a commitment of $1 million from the Northern Territory government for an innovative regional transport hub proposal for Ngukurr, Numbulwar and Borroloola. They have not been funded, but a swimming pool in Parap has been funded. But, of course, the criteria for regional development funding, including the policy intent, is that 'all projects must deliver an economic benefit to disadvantaged regions'. I just ask you to think about this: relative advantage-disadvantage – Parap, a middle-class suburb of Darwin, with already an existing swimming pool and swimming infrastructure, or remote communities in the north end of the Barkly and the southern part of Arnhem Land and the Borroloola region who are extremely disadvantaged. You do not have to be Einstein to work out what is going on here—a political fix done, despite the protestations of the government and its commitment to saying that it was going to be doing the right thing by the regions. I also wanted to talk about the petrol tax. Of course, we know—you know and I know—that the people most disadvantaged by the increase in fuel excise will be people who live in my electorate of Lingiari. They will be doubly taxed, not only as a result of the fuel excise but as a result of the GST that goes on the final price of fuel. This is an absolute misery of a budget for people who live in the bush. You know it, I know it and everyone on the government benches know it. (Time expired) 17:50 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Of course, I must say that I appreciate being able to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and other appropriation bills, but it is a bit nauseating to hear speech after speech from the opposition whingeing about cuts. I think they must live in some parallel universe. Any responsibility for any cut clearly lies on their shoulders. They fail to realise, after six years of their reckless and wasteful spending, that we as a government now need to find, and we as a nation need to finance, $13 billion every year just to pay the interest on the debt that they created. If you listen to members of the opposition, they say that it was their spending on the pink batts, their overspending on school halls and their blow-outs on border protection that saved us from the GFC. What a wonderful effort! If this was so good, let us roll out more of these great programs. But just imagine if we had that $13 billion of expenditure and we had not had that reckless, wasteful and politically motivated spending. Ms Butler interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Imagine the money that we would have to spend on the new drugs, on aged care, on kids with disabilities, on the roads and on all those things we desperately need in our society. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM ( ): I will remind the member for Griffith that the previous speaker was heard in silence. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I rather enjoy the member for Griffith's interjections, because it shows how completely out of touch those members of the Labor Party are. I welcome any interjection from the member for Griffith—get it recorded, get it down, because I want history to record how out of touch and completely delusional the member for Griffith is. The best thing about this budget is that we get back to basics. The basics of this government are about creating wealth for the nation and increasing the size of the pie so that we can afford to do all those social programs that we need. Unlike the member for Griffith, this side of politics understands that there is no magic pudding. We have to raise every single cent we spend. We need to raise that money. The way to do it is quite simple. We need investment and productive assets, and we need to encourage entrepreneurship, risk taking and experimentation, because that is what drives the innovation and the productivity increases and creates wealth in this nation. I thought a quote from Steve Kates, Associate Professor of Economics at RMIT, was interesting. I thought that it was very worthwhile repeating. He said: Growth and employment are the result of VALUE ADDING production. That is, the result of production where the value of what is produced will, within a reasonably short period of time, create an income flow even greater in value than the value of the resources used up. That is the meaning of value adding. …   …   … Growth comes from business. If you confuse personal spending with business spending you will never get these things clear in your head. There is personal consumption, which is the point of economic activity. And there is business activity which is continually trying to add value to the resources they use up. He advises: … stop looking for consumer demand to lead the recovery. It cannot be done. I concur with those remarks of the professor. That is why this budget does exactly that. With a small business package, it is about creating investment in the productive assets of this nation and encouraging entrepreneurship. Small business need every help they can get. It is worthwhile noting that, for the six years that the Labor Party were running this country, the small business sector in this country lost over 500,000 jobs. Half a million jobs were lost in the small-business sector. We see the contempt the opposition have for small business. We saw the complete contempt of the Leader of the Opposition in his infamous pie shop incident in Melbourne. We saw the complete contempt of the previous Labor government with the crushing of 500,000 jobs in the small-business sector. That is why this budget is so important. It gives small business the incentive to go out and invest. It gives them the incentive to invest in productive assets and take risks. The cost of those small-business tax cuts in the budget papers is about $350 million every year over the next four years. But I would like to make a prediction. My prediction is that those tax cuts for small business—reducing the corporate tax rate from 30 per cent down to 28.5 per cent—will not cost the budget one single cent when the final count is done. I will tell you why. It is because it is exactly what has happened every time in our nation's history when we have lowered the corporate tax rate. What happened under the earlier Hawke Labor government when the tax rate was lowered? Tax revenue did not fall; it actually increased. But more importantly it actually increased as a percentage of GDP. The lower the tax rate we have, it is highly likely that more tax revenue will flow to government. I will make that prediction. I believe that in several years time when we sit down and analyse the effect of these tax cuts for small business, they will have had a positive effect on the bottom-line of the government. The government of the day will actually be receiving more money in taxation revenue at a rate of 28.5 per cent for small businesses than they would at the rate of 30 per cent. When it comes to investments in productive assets I think it is worthwhile looking at some of the terrible mistakes we have made over the past couple of years. Some of those terrible mistakes were actually put out in the Grattan Institute report on our solar rooftop schemes. The Grattan Institute equated this to a $10 billion net loss to the economy—$10 billion written off. They say that $18.7 billion will be invested up to 2030 in installing and repairing solar rooftops, and that will produce $7 billion worth of electricity. So if you invest and spend $18 billion but you only get $7 billion in return, I do not think that is a very good investment. That is a way to destroy capital and make the country poorer. We have seen it through Labor states building desalination plants. Billions and billions of dollars wasted. In fact I think at the desalination plant in Sydney—one of the few desalination plants in the world—they had to bring in bilge pumps to pump the fresh water out so that they could lay the foundations. Then, unfortunately, we see the waste that has been forced upon this nation with the renewable energy target. We are going to see about $20 billion wasted on building around 2,000 additional wind turbines, at a time where we do not need a single wind turbine built, where a single wind turbine would not be built without this subsidy. This is waste. It is the effect it has on the poorest people of this nation when we have this absolute waste of money. Ms MacTiernan interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I hear the member interjecting over there. How many wind turbines are you volunteering to have set up in your electorate? Ms MacTiernan interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Maybe there are some nice places in Perth you could volunteer. Very nice. Ms MacTiernan interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Yes, you will vote for them, yes, you like them, but you will put them in other people's electorates so that they can bear the burden. Ms MacTiernan interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 If the member for Perth really believes these turbines are excellent— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I remind members that the previous speaker was heard in silence. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Speaking of waste on these issues brings me to the carbon tax. We know that the shadow Treasurer has said that if Labor are successful at the next election they will bring back the carbon tax in one form or another. You will bring the carbon tax back in one form or another. Ms Butler 248006 Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I do not believe that the shadow Treasurer has said any such thing, and I invite the member to correct the record. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ZN4 That is not an appropriate point of order. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 It is very clear. They can clear the record up now. You will not bring back the carbon tax in any respect at all. We know they will. I would just like to make a few points about how— Ms MacTiernan interjecting— Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Yes, absolutely. I will make a few points about how damaging the carbon tax is. The carbon tax is a tax that causes illness and death. Let me go through and explain that to the member for Perth. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ZN4 I would ask members opposite to discontinue their interjections, as the previous Deputy Speaker has asked you to do. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 We know that when you apply a carbon tax you increase electricity prices. We can see the effect of increasing electricity prices in New South Wales. In the last year of the carbon tax, the number of households that had their electricity cut off in New South Wales doubled from four years earlier. It doubled! Thirty-three thousand households in New South Wales— Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ZN4 To the member for Perth in particular and to the other members: I have already asked if you could desist from making so much noise. This is a warning. Please allow the member for Hughes to be heard in silence and show him the courtesy of allowing him to finish his speech. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I know they do not like to hear these facts. I know it hurts them. I know that they may not care that 33,000 households in New South Wales, double the number from several years ago, had their electricity cut off. What happens when people have their electricity cut off? There are two effects. Firstly, it causes people to live in cold homes. The World Health Organization recommends that the minimum indoor temperature be kept at 18 degrees and ideally 21 degrees if babies or elderly people live in the house. They say: if house temperatures fall below 16 degrees, the risk of respiratory illness increases. In the Health impacts of cold homes and fuel povertyreport, the Marmot Review Team state that excess winter deaths 'are almost three times higher in the coldest quarter of housing than in the warmest quarter. They say: … excess winter deaths are almost three times higher in the coldest quarter of housing than in the warmest quarter. They go on to say: Children living in cold homes are more than twice as likely to suffer from a variety of respiratory problems than children living in warm homes. Further, they say: Mental health is negatively affected by fuel poverty and cold housing for any age group. The report says: Cold housing increases the level of minor illnesses … And, for older people, they state: Effects of cold housing were evident in terms of higher mortality risk, physical health and mental health. That is what happens when you increase carbon taxes and when you increase electricity prices and when you have all these crazy schemes like the solar subsidies and the RET. The effect is that the poorest people of this country are having their electricity cut off. Thirty-three thousand of them! There is another problem with the carbon tax. When people cannot afford their electricity and they try to keep their house warm, they simply go out and burn wood. I think for first time ever, there were ads running on Sydney radio asking people to buy wood to burn in their homes to keep their homes warm. One of the effects of burning wood in the Sydney Basin is the release of particulate matter. The World Health Organization note: The most health-damaging particles are those with a diameter of 10 microns or less … which can penetrate and lodge deep inside the lungs. Chronic exposure to particles contributes to the risk of developing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as of lung cancer. We have a recommendation in this country that for particulate matter called pm 2.5 we have a maximum annual average of eight microns per cubic metre. In the suburb that I represent, in the last two years since the implementation of the carbon tax, we are above that level. I call on members of the opposition, put aside your ideological blinkers and put look at the health and illness effects that the carbon tax will have on the poorest people of this nation. 18:05 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth I do need to respond to some of those comments by the member for Hughes, particularly his ill informed comment about the era of desalination. In 2001, when the state Labor government in Western Australia recognised that what had been happening in our— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:06 to 18:19 The DEPUTY SPEAKER ZN4 If we can reset the clock to 15 minutes so the member for Perth can start her speech from then. Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to see my friend the member for Hughes is back because we can address some of the calumny that was contained in his address. Mr Craig Kelly interjecting— Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Yes, I will tell you about this desalination plant. It has been very clear in Perth that, since 1975, we have seen a massive drop-off in both our rainfall and stream flows. Mr Craig Kelly 99931 What about in Sydney? What about in Melbourne? What about Brisbane? Ms MacTIERNAN L6P I know that if you are not from Sydney you are camping out, but I am happy to give the member a map of Australia to show him that there are some places other than Sydney in Australia—Perth being one of those and being in a state that punches well above its weight in terms of its economic contribution. As I was seeking to explain to the member, who has never heard of anything outside Sydney, in Perth and in the south-west of Western Australia we have seen, since 1975, a dramatic decline. It is a decline that is occurring exponentially—if you can have an exponential decline—in both our rainfall and our stream flows. As a result, Perth, whose population has been growing very dramatically, was by 2001 facing a very severe water crisis. I want to put on record my congratulations particularly to Geoff Gallop, who was a person who totally recognised in government that this was not just a drought that Western Australia was going through but rather that there was a systemic shift in our climate pattern as a result of global warming. As a result, we commissioned our first desalination plant—115 gigawatts. In 2001, we made the decision. It was finally commissioned in 2006. Shortly thereafter it became evident that, far from this being some sort of white elephant infrastructure, indeed we needed a second desalination plant. And I think there would not be a person in Perth who would not— Mr Craig Kelly interjecting— Ms MacTIERNAN L6P We have built our second one. We are a bit ahead of you guys over there in, perhaps, your less sophisticated political culture than what we have in Western Australia. We have managed to get on with the job in Western Australia and build those desalination plants, without which Perth would not be able to continue to grow and be predicted, as it is, to outstrip Brisbane as the third sized city. But I am sure the member for Hughes— Mr Craig Kelly interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ZN4 I would ask the member for Hughes to desist and to allow the member for Perth to continue in silence. Ms MacTIERNAN L6P I am sure he appreciates the opportunity of having a little bit of an education. I would also say to the member for Hughes: in all this concern about our future, our children, our grandchildren and the cost of electricity, would he look at the impact of climate change, the health effects that are going to occur in the community if we do not face up to the need to address these very serious issues of climate change, and the fact that investment in renewable energy is about providing us with a long-term capacity to provide energy that is not going to cost us the earth, literally. I will comment that even the Warburton report recognised that, in the long term, investment in renewable energy will lead to a decline in the cost of energy. What I wanted to talk about today is how a provision that is, again, woven into this budget—and indeed the last budget—is causing very poor planning outcomes in Perth. We know that the Prime Minister famously has been reluctant or has refused to allow a rational approach to be taken to the investment in infrastructure in urban areas and that he has, as stated in his Battlelines, a deep and profound ideological opposition to public transport. He does not believe that it provides people with that same opportunity to be a king in their castle. He believes that, because people are going from different places to different destinations, it is not possible to make public transport that is fast, efficient and attractive to the commuter. We know, and people around the world know, that that is abject nonsense. But we have this incredible primitive ideology now entrenching itself into government policy. And we have this extraordinary decision that has been made even though 80 per cent of Australia's population live in big cities. Big cities, it is understood, rely on public transport to be able to provide the mobility that allows them to exploit the agglomeration benefits of being a big city. The whole thing that that makes a city work is you bring all these people together that have got specialist skills and a diversity of skills and that together creates the creativity and the range of skills that you need to drive the economy forward. All of that depends on there being mobility. We absolutely understand that even in the Middle East these days they are absolutely committed to massive urban transport projects that are going ahead in Doha, Dubai and Ryad—all throughout the Middle East. We understand that we need to do this but we have got here as our Prime Minister this cultural primitive locked in the ideology of the 1950s and 1960s who literally cannot see it. The justification of the Prime Minister was 'we are going to walk away from rail and we will only fund roads, but that is not an anti-rail stance because what we will do is we will free up money and that will allow the states to build the rail because we will be spending more money on the roads'. Of course we knew that was never going to happen. And we knew that what was going to be the inevitable consequence was that the state governments would be chasing the dollars so they would move their commitments away from rail projects into road projects so that they can access those virtual dollars. Because you do not get 100 per cent federal funding of a project. Normally you would only get around 50 per cent funding of a project, hence you are creating a perverse incentive for roads to be privileged over public transport. There is no clearer case of this than in Perth. At the last election, the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, went to the election with two key promises in two marginal seats that he was seeking to win. One was that he was going to build a rail link to the Perth airport and beyond—fully costed, fully funded. That was going to be built by 2016, I think it was. And then he was going to build a MAX Light Rail, which was going to be a light rail system around the inner suburbs of Perth heading up into the middle-ranking northern suburbs—fully funded, fully costed he said. Since then, the Premier has of course decided that he can no longer afford these. So in 2013, not that long ago, he made that fully funded and fully costed commitment. The Perth airport rail link has been delayed now by some two years to help him manage his costs. And the MAX Light Rail system has been totally and utterly abandoned because he said he just did not have the money. However, the Premier has been able to bring onto the agenda at $1.6-billion road project that was never an election commitment. So we cannot afford to do those rail projects that he committed to at the last election but he can do a road project because he is out there chasing the federal dollars. We have seen that the proposal that we have now, the road proposal, the Perth freight link, has been the most poorly designed and poorly thought-through project because it was done without any planning, because it was done in response to an ideological imperative. We had a situation where the federal Labor government in 2013 had actually put into the budget $500 million for Perth rail projects. It was not confined to a particular project but for whatever project the state government would want to bring forward for priority funding, $500 million. That $500 million had to come out of the budget because of the Abbott ideology. But they could not just leave this big gaping hole there; they had to find another project. They had to drum up something. So they created this project, the Perth freight link, which is an amalgamation of three projects. One was already funded under the Labor government, which is an upgrade of Leach Highway and High Street. It was a $59 million project, creating improved pathways into the Fremantle Port. But they added to that the Roe Highway stage 8 and they added this amazing new design of proposed work on Stock Road. That is a $1.6 billion project. This has been done in the absence of any proper planning in a strategic sense. We know that even the Treasurer is acknowledging that the Fremantle container facility will be at peak capacity in the next 10 to 15 years. However, the projection of the Perth freight link showed that that will happen somewhat sooner than that and that a new port in the Kwinana region will have to be built by about 2021. So within two years of this Perth freight link into the Fremantle port being opened, we will actually have to build a new port in Kwinana on the Cockburn Sound. We will even have to build infrastructure into that. I expect that that new port or that new facility will be privately built, but we will have to provide road and rail access into that port. How much better would it be if we were to take that money and ensure that we were putting road and rail infrastructure into a port that will be around for decades to come rather than building it because of this need to fill a hole created by Prime Minister Tony Abbott's antagonism to public transport, that we have to get this project, cobble it together, chuck it in and try to make it work? In the last week we have had the state minister for transport saying, 'We had really robust planning, but I'm not actually sure that we have got the right route into the port.' We are supposed to be in the middle of the project and now, even the state minister for transport, when he realised how many houses and businesses he will have to knock over, is querying whether he has the route of this Perth freight link right. Again, it is absolute and complete chaos and anarchy, caused by an ideological limitation on the part of the Prime Minister. I urge that we go back to the drawing board. Let us have a look at this project and at what we can do with this $1.6 million. Should we be investing in public transport infrastructure? It is currently predicted that Perth, by 2031, will be the congestion capital of Australia. We have got a far lower rate of public transport usage than the cities of Melbourne and Sydney. So if we want to avoid going down this predictive path of being the congestion capital of Australia, we will really have to ramp up our public transport product and ensure that we get people out of their cars, into modern efficient public transport that can—and it has been demonstrated that it can—attract commuters and help us solve this congestion problem. 18:34 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise today to speak alongside my colleagues on the budget appropriation bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills. I am proud to stand as part of the Liberal-National Party coalition government that has delivered the most significant small business package in 50 years. I am proud to stand with a coalition that has delivered for farmers. I am proud to stand with a coalition that offers incentives to help our small country towns like Clermont and Middlemount to attract and retain local doctors. I am proud to stand with a coalition that is investing in fixing up regional highways. I am proud to stand with a coalition that offers rural and regional Australia hope for the expansion of Northern Australia. Unlike Labor, we offer rural and regional Australians hope and direction. Unlike Labor we are not a mouthpiece for unions or for holding back the potential of regional Australia. We are helping average Aussies to have a go. This budget is the next step in our government's plan to build a strong, safe and prosperous future for all Australians. As the Treasurer indicates, it will help build jobs, growth and opportunity and provide a credible path to budget surplus. The word credible is important to use here, because you will recall that when Labor was in charge of the nation's finances they drove Australia deep into debt and fiscally trashed our global reputation. Let me outline in detail some of our key budget measures that I have just touched on. In the past, when I walked along East Street in Rockhampton, or other parts of the electorate, small business owners were telling me they were worried for their future and needed some federal support. I listened to these constituents, and each time I brought their voice and concerns back to Canberra. Small business is one of the biggest employers and it is the engine room of our economy. Thanks to our government and the commitment of MPs on our side of the House, mum and dad businesses will benefit from the biggest small business initiative in our nation's history. It is called our Growing Jobs and Small Business Package. Small business, including Capricornia tradies, sole traders and partnerships will get a tax cut to help boost the local economy. These tax cuts form part of the $5.5 billion Growing Jobs and Small Business Package to help small businesses in Capricornia invest more, grow more and employ more local people. Significantly, small business with turnover below $2 million can claim an immediate tax deduction for every asset they acquire that is valued up to $20,000 for tax purposes. This is a substantial increase from the previous $1,000 threshold. For example, if Jeffrey Pearce, who, with his mum, proudly operates Cal's Snack Bar in Kawana, an industrial suburb of North Rockhampton, needs to buy new kitchen equipment, a new coffee machine, hot food display boxes, gas stoves, fridges, or even a budget delivery van, he could take advantage of this generous tax related incentive. Any item under $20,000 is immediately 100 per cent tax deductible in its first year. A business is not restricted to just one item, but can purchase multiple items of up to $20,000 each. From 1 July 2015, for incorporated businesses with an annual turnover of up to $2 million the government will cut the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28.5 per cent. From 1 July 2015 the government will also provide a capped tax discount of up to five per cent to sole traders, trusts and partnerships that are unincorporated businesses and have an annual turnover under $2 million. Small businesses in Capricornia will have the lowest company tax rate for public and private companies since 1967. These and other measures are significant in Rockhampton, where small business has been doing it tough. Shops along the city's East Street precinct have been closing down due to tough economic conditions. Now, following the new budget measures, there is more optimism. Peter Fraser, a Westpac bank manager, and president of the Capricornia Chamber of Commerce, has described the budget measures for small business as extremely important, and some of the best measures in a decade. When federal Minister for Small Business Bruce Billson came to Rockhampton six days after we delivered the federal budget, Mark and Bruce Woods of Stewarts Department Store, an iconic Rockhampton family business, told him we delivered an excellent budget for small business and the national economy. We want to help small business get ahead, because small business owners are the biggest single employers in the country. When small business is doing well, larger businesses and our local economy also do well. Small business owners are also some of the most generous in our community. They are the ones who contribute donations to local schools, sporting clubs and community events. The Growing Jobs and Small Business package will also encourage new business start-ups. Start-up businesses will be able to immediately deduct professional expenses incurred when they begin a business, such as legal expenses on establishing a company, trust or partnership, rather than writing them off over five years. This is a budget that also looks after farmers. It is, after all, industries from rural and regional Australia that produce the bulk of export commodities that contribute to Australia's GDP. Rural and regional Australia in places like Capricornia are big winners from the federal budget. Fast-track tax depreciation for fencing, water and fodder storage are some of the major changes. Let me outline some examples. Firstly, the positive change to how a farmer can deduct the cost of fencing is arguably the most significant benefit that farmers have been asking for help with. A $25,000 new fence was previously deducted over 30 years, but now it can be deducted immediately, giving a $24,000 larger deduction in the first year after it was built. Fences are vital farm infrastructure and can run for dozens if not hundreds of kilometres. Fences protect valuable livestock and help to keep feral animals off the farm. The change in fencing deductions is significant for those on the land, working their guts out to feed and clothe the rest of Australia with the food and fibre they produce. Other examples of how we are helping farmers in their businesses is with water and fodder storage. An $80,000 irrigation system previously was deducted over three years but can also now be deducted immediately, giving a $53,000 larger deduction in its first year. Where a $21,000 steel silo was previously deducted over 30 years, it can now be deducted over three years. This helps viable farmers with cash flow and improving on-farm infrastructure. Our budget goes further to support communities hit by drought in Queensland, including areas west of Clermont. In fact, up to 70 per cent of Queensland remains in drought. This budget takes the total value of drought help measures available to more than $400 million. It includes $35 million for shovel-ready local infrastructure and employment projects, $25 million to manage pest animals and weeds in drought affected areas, $20 million to expand existing social and community support programs, $1.8 million for additional rural financial counsellors in drought affected areas and $250 million in 2015-16 to continue to give viable farmers access to existing drought specific concessional loan schemes. My electorate of Capricornia is a vast area spanning 91,047 square kilometres. For country people, roads are often the only form of travel available. In this budget, local councils will be given double the money to get on with the job of fixing local streets and roads. Thanks to this federal budget, work will continue to make our major highways safe in Capricornia. Under local road projects, the government will spend $35 million to replace four bridges on the notorious Peak Downs Highway; $166 million to fix the Eton Range section of the Peak Downs Highway leading to the coalfields, with the first instalment of $30 million paid in 2015-16; and a further $500 million on works to fix up the Bruce Highway in regional Queensland, including Rockhampton to St Lawrence, Sarina and Mackay. This includes a further $21 million instalment on the Yeppen South project, which is raising the Bruce Highway near Rockhampton. When it comes to local councils, Rockhampton, Livingstone, Isaac, Whitsunday and Mackay councils will receive double their normal road maintenance allocation, worth up to $10 million, across Capricornia towns under the Commonwealth Roads to Recovery fund. Under the program, this financial year's allocations include: Isaac Regional Council, over $2.1 million; Livingstone Shire Council, over $1.2 million; Mackay Regional Council, over $2.8 million; Rockhampton Regional Council, over $2.1 million; and Whitsunday Regional Council, nearly $1.5 million. For example, in Rockhampton the city council could use this money to help repair Quay Street or other roads of their choosing that have been neglected. The future development of northern Australia, from the Tropic of Capricorn upwards, is important to our nation's agriculture and resource future. Our government is providing a new $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which is the first major step in developing our North. The first ever white paper on developing northern Australia will be released later this year. During this white paper process, I have fought hard for Capricornia to get central Queensland a recognised representative on the Prime Minister's northern Australian task force. The representative is CQ University Vice-Chancellor Scott Bowman. When it comes to northern Australia, in my role of representing Capricornia, I will continue to push water infrastructure projects like the Fitzroy Agricultural Corridor, Urannah Dam and Connors River Dam. Health and access to GPs in country towns are also a priority for this coalition government. I am pleased to inform the House that 10 remote towns and small coastal communities in Capricornia will now find it easier to attract local doctors thanks to the new federal government budget incentives. The incentives are the result of overhauling the federal government's GP Rural Incentives Programme and spell good news for country patients. The overhaul delivers a fairer system for our rural towns by redirecting incentives that were being paid to medicos in major cities to now attract more doctors in small country towns that have a genuine difficulty in retaining GPs. In Capricornia, towns such as Clermont, Middlemount, Dysart, Sarina, Collinsville, Marian, Glenden, Hay Point and Emu Park will benefit from these changes. It makes no sense that, under the old Labor system, $50 million a year was being used for incentives to get doctors to live in large regional cities like Townsville, with a population of 175,000, and Cairns, with a population of 145,000. Quite frankly, these cities are not isolated. This money will now be spent attracting doctors to remote country towns and small coastal communities that find it hard to get GPs. Importantly, we have not forgotten about small community groups, which make up the social fabric of our small towns and rural cities. The Stronger Communities program, announced in this budget, will provide a $300,000 pool to Capricornia over two years. Nationally, the coalition's Stronger Communities program will provide $45 million across Australia to fund small capital projects in local communities. In Capricornia, we will receive $150,000 per year to dish out to small projects that deliver important social benefits. Reputable not-for-profit organisations can apply for amounts between $1,000 and $20,000 for small local projects. In conclusion, the most important thing about our budget is that it clearly demonstrates that the Liberal-National coalition is a government that has a plan for Australia. Unlike Labor, this budget takes our nation further along the path of building a strong, safe and prosperous future for all Australians. It will help build jobs, growth and opportunity and provide a credible path back to budget surplus. 18:48 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield It is a great pleasure to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2015-2016, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2014-2015 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2014-2015. Before I make some remarks about the budget, I want to just inform the chamber of a significant event in South Australia. The South Australian branch of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the SDA, the union I was a member of and an organiser and official for, had its 125th anniversary this year, and we had a very large dinner to celebrate that. At this dinner, one of the real stalwarts of the union, Roger Nicholls, who I know well and who lives in my electorate, received life membership of the union. The reason Roger received life membership of the union is that he has been a member for 20 years, since 1993. He is employed at the Woolworths distribution centre at Gepps Cross. Roger is an absolute stalwart not just of the union; he has served as a delegate and a member of the committee of management. But for so long he was just a rank and file unionist, a rank and file worker, but one that people respected greatly and listened to. He was always a voice for common sense and moderation. He has been well respected not just by his friends and colleagues on the floor of the warehouse but also by management. So much of the corporate knowledge of that distribution centre is held in Roger's head, to the extent that he is relied upon by both workers and management in enterprise bargaining agreement negotiations. Roger has been there over the years at the bargaining table, sometimes in some pretty tough bargaining circumstances, but they have always managed to have not an entirely harmonious but a fairly harmonious working environment where problems are resolved through negotiation, common sense and common decency. That is a tribute not just to the workers but also to the management of the distribution centre. I think Roger sets the scene for so much of that. He is a good unionist and a good Australian. He is a person I have certainly relied upon, not just through my time as a member of parliament but before that as a union official, for his wise counsel and his advice and common sense. It was great to see him get life membership. One of the workers at the distribution centre who was asked to say a few words about Roger said that he was just an all-round good guy. I think that sentiment should be echoed in the parliament as well because I would certainly back that notion. I should say that Roger and his family are great supporters of the Elizabeth Vale soccer club. I know he would not let me get away without mentioning that. They are such good representatives of the northern suburbs of Adelaide and of the families who live there. They are decent, working-class people who want not just a good suburb or a good state but a good country as well. They are really good people. They look to this parliament, and I think to all governments, with a sense that we should have a fair go and a fair country. That is something that I think is often talked about, but it is another thing entirely to have it expressed in public policy. That is one of the great disappointments of this budget and one of the great disappointments of this government – the broken promises, the broken commitments, the sugar hits now and the spin that we see as coalition backbenchers try to wriggle out of the electoral trap that they are in. Today we saw a lot of laughter in the House of Representatives about NATSEM modelling. This is modelling that shows that nine out of 10 of the lowest income families lose out from this year's budget, while nine out of 10 of the wealthiest families benefit; they win. It is worth thinking about how you judge a budget on whether or not it is fair. I think that most people, when they are given that information, will come to the conclusion – when the smoke clears, when the hoo-ha clears, when the spin clears and when they actually have a look at the detail – as they did last year, that his government's approach and values are fundamentally unfair. We can see this in the NATSEM modelling which shows that a family with a single income of $65,000 with two children will be $6,164 a year worse off by 2018-19. A single mum with an income of $55,000 with two children will be $6,000 worse off. A family with a dual income of $60,000 with two children will be $3,843 a year worse off by 2018-19. Particularly for that last family, the key words there are 'dual income' – that is, they are a working family. There are so many of them in my electorate, people who do the right thing by this country because they go out and work for a living. They uphold the values of this nation and do the right thing by this nation. They look after themselves and their families and what they expect from this government is a commitment to the Australian value of a fair go. Now, we know what the Australian Council of Social Service said about this budget. ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie said that the overall budget fails the fairness test because it delivers an estimated $15 billion in spending cuts, including new cuts to child dental and community health programs in the budget, on top of the retained savings from last year's budget. We know that those savings were savage indeed—some $50 billion last year in cuts to education and health, money that is coming out of hospitals and local schools—and we are yet to see the impact. We know that last year we had no fewer than five versions of the GP tax—five versions of a co-payment that would stop a million people going to the hospital in the first year of its operation and 500,000 in the years after. We know that the government, rather than now having the guts to stick to their policy and charge people to go to the doctor, have simply gone in and cut doctor rebates, which will have the same effect. We see the same policies wrapped up in a different way with a sugar hit and a lot of spin all designed to buttress the Prime Minister's position in his own party room. We know that is a vulnerable position. It is a delicate position: 39 of his colleagues voted for someone else. The choice they had was 'none of the above', because the member for Wentworth did not have the courage to put his head above the parapet, and I think he probably regrets that now, because he might have missed his chance. We know that this budget is based around supporting the Prime Minister's job and is not about the future, including the future of working families. We have this situation where $5.5 billion has been hacked away from family tax benefits. We have seen cuts to paid parental leave. One minute the coalition had one of the world's most generous paid parental leave schemes, and now they have completely jumped the shark and they are going to hack into the benefits that working families get if they dare to get a paid parental leave provision in their enterprise bargaining agreement or in their salary. It was once said in this country that it was very doubtful that workers in retail would get paid parental leave because of the demographics of the workforce, but Woolworths and Myers are to be congratulated for being employers of predominantly female workforces yet still going down the path of having a paid parental leave provision in their awards and paying for a benefit for working women to have decent and generous paid leave while they have their children. This government is going to go to town on that provision and make it completely worthless for Woolworths to do that, because it will hack into the amount of money that the government gives you at that time. We hear all this palaver about rich public servants, but I tell you: those people will always get by, but the workers and working women at Woolworths and Myers and places like that really value those provisions and really need that money at a very important time in their family's life, the birth of a child. So you can imagine that the working women of this country are very disappointed about this budget. When they work out their cuts to family tax benefits and when people do their figures on the spin and the smoke and mirrors trick that the Prime Minister has done, the coalition backbench will find that the support for this budget diminishes and seeps away into the ether just like last year's budget. We have seen this phrase 'Tony's tradies'. I am reluctant to use it because it is one of those coalition things. Like 'Reagan Democrats' and 'Essex man' in the United Kingdom, it is a lot of palaver. It is a coalition desperately trying to associate themselves with the working people of this country, the people who do the work in this country, at the same time as they hack into their living standards in terms of family tax benefit and in terms of making them want to work until they are 70. There are not many tradies whose bodies are not suffering by that age. You would have to be a pretty lucky tradie—a pretty lucky bricklayer or builder—to still be going at 70. We see the approach of the coalition, this smoke and mirrors trick. We know what they are doing to young workers. They are reducing the waiting period from six months to one month, but that is still one month where young people will have no income at all. I know in my state the effects that they are having at Holden, and we have seen now the first forced redundancies ever at GM Holden in Elizabeth. That tells you something about this government. They have plunged the South Australian automotive industry and with it the Victorian automotive industry—50,000 people—into the prospect of unemployment. We are now seeing the effect of that at Holden with job losses, with people having to face a very tough labour market. Unemployment is up, debt is up, taxes are up so we know people are walking into a circumstance which is going to be very difficult for them to walk out of. Only today Ian Macfarlane belled the cat in the Financial Review and said that the first subs would not be made in South Australia—and this is after the launch of the Hobart on the weekend. We have had this government promise one thing before the election and deliver very little—broken promises, spin, hoo-ha, sugar hit but nothing substantial in the long term. We know that on submarines, on shipbuilding and on car making they are determined to destroy the industrial and manufacturing base of this nation, particularly in my state of South Australia. It will have a devastating effect on jobs for South Australians and it will have a devastating effect, I know, on my electorate. We see that every single day and every single week out there in my electorate. I think it is so disappointing for those workers because they do work hard and they do the right thing. The workers at Holden, through their enterprise bargaining agreement, offered up the required amount of savings to make that factory viable if only they had got government support. Rather than government support, what they got was a Treasurer trying to chase them out of the country and a cabinet that was bent on the principle of scorched earth at the time. They have since gone completely to water on every other issue but at the time they were bent on the scorched earth approach. The outcome is 50,000 people are looking down the barrel of unemployment. We see that in my electorate. Only the other day in TheAdvertiser, Mr Adris Salih, 51 of Gawler East—51 is a tough time to face unemployment—said: Saying goodbye to your workmates who you work with … you get all emotional. They are like your family. You see more of them than you do of your family sometimes. I didn't think I would, but I shed a tear. I have worked with some of them for 28 years. It is sad to leave. Those are the real stories that are going to undermine the spin and the garbage of this budget. Working people and working families all over this country will soon bell the cat on this budget and reveal it for the unfair document that it is. 19:03 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest The coalition understands small business as the heart and soul of the Australian economy. It is definitely the heart and soul of local communities like the south-west in my electorate. Of the over two million actively trading businesses in Australia, almost 96 per cent are small businesses. Small businesses are those with fewer than 20 employees. They account for 46 per cent of all Australian workers in the private sector, a number that fell significantly under the Labor government. This means that small business employs perhaps 40 per cent of all Australian workers, and in so many small regional and rural communities as well. The small businesses are, as I said, the heart and soul of the community itself. They are the ones who choose to invest in areas where often there is great need but frequently less profit. They also support local service clubs, community service organisations and sporting clubs. If they are farming businesses, it is often their tractors and machinery that are used for community projects as well as the expertise of the local farmer in actually operating the gear to get the job done. And that is why this small business is so important to the coalition government and why we have demonstrated this so clearly in the budget, our clear and strong focus on small business. Even in the lead up to the budget we delivered a new way for small business to interact with the Commonwealth, and real powers through the transition of the Small Business Commissioner into the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. It can be often really frustrating if you are a small business making sense of the complex information and range of services the government offers. The government is helping businesses to help themselves. The ombudsman will provide straightforward and honest advice that will help businesses understand disputes and how they can be avoided in the future. We have set up a new unit to provide specialist advice on contracts, and to ensure that small businesses are not disadvantaged, as part of the Commonwealth departments' tendering and procurement processes. The Abbott government has allocated $2.8 million over four years to deliver on this important commitment, which will help small businesses access Commonwealth contracts. The government has also reduced the compliance burden employers face, when making superannuation contributions, by having the Australian Taxation Office take over the running of the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House—something really practical when your business is working in your business and you are limited for time. It is an online service that helps small businesses meet their superannuation guarantee obligations by allowing employers to pay super contributions in one transaction, to a single location, to reduce red tape and compliance costs—just practical. Another step has been to ensure that small-business people who call the Fair Work Ombudsman now receive priority service with reduced waiting times. If you are in small business every minute counts, and every minute away from your customers counts. This will help them to efficiently improve their understanding of workplace laws so that they are more confident in growing, investing and creating jobs. This is another important plank in our small-business policy. This government is doing the first comprehensive review of competition laws and policy in more than 20 years, delivering on a key election commitment, and we are doing what we said we would do. The budget in 2015 delivers $3.25 billion in tax cuts for small businesses, and $1.75 billion in accelerated depreciation measures—again, practical outcomes. From 1 July the government will cut the company tax rate for up to 780,000 incorporated businesses with an annual turnover of up to $2 million by 1.5 per cent, down to 28.5 per cent. From 1 July the government will also provide a five per cent tax discount for over 1½ million sole traders, trusts and partnership structures that are unincorporated businesses with an annual turnover of up to $2 million—capped at $1,000—through their end-of-year tax return. As well, until June 2017, small businesses with a turnover of below $2 million will be able to fully and immediately deduct every asset they acquire that is valued up to $20,000 for tax purposes—a substantial increase from the previous $1,000 threshold. Australian small businesses will have the lowest company tax rate for public and private companies since 1967. The growing jobs and small-business package also includes measures to further reduce the red tape and regulatory impediments that hinder small-business growth, including changes to the fringe-benefits tax system that will expand the FBT exemption for work related portable electronic devices. Reforms to capital gains tax rollover will enable small businesses to change the legal structure of their business without incurring CGT liability, and the government will consult on potential changes to the Corporations Act to reduce compliance costs and make it easier for small proprietary companies to raise new capital. These are really simple, sometimes small and incremental changes but, if you are in small business, each one makes a difference. The growing jobs and small-business package encourages business start-ups and entrepreneurships as well. Start-ups will be able to immediately deduct professional expenses incurred when they begin a business, such as legal expenses upon establishing a company, a trust, or a partnership, rather than writing them off over five years. This provides immediate cash-flow benefits for small business. If you are starting up, your cash flow is king. We will also provide a streamlined business-registration process to make it quicker and simpler to set up a new business, and a single online registration site will be developed for business registration, including company registration, simplifying it and making it easier to get involved in small business. The government will remove obstacles to crowd sourced equity funding to help promote small businesses' access to finance by increasing the availability of innovative sources of funding. And, from 1 July, expanded tax concessions for employee share schemes will make it easier for small start-up companies to attract and retain the skills and talent they need to grow—the skills and talent in my part of the world. These measures will help encourage investment—those thousands of small businesses in my part of the world. It will encourage investment, innovation and the start-up of new businesses, which will help Australia's economic future. The growing jobs and small business package also helps employers to take on inexperienced and mature workers—both ends. No wonder small business is energised and rubbing its hands. For the first time in many years, small business is actually getting the respect it deserves, not what we saw with those five or six small business ministers and basically a throwaway, disposable approach that the previous government had to small business. Since the government was elected, around a quarter of a million new jobs have been created, but there is much more to be done. New measures will focus on making job seekers more employable, reducing the costs of taking on new staff and bringing job seekers and job providers together. The government is investing $6.8 billion to establish Job Active to improve the quality of services delivered to job seekers and employers. The new Job Active system will be focused on results and reward performance, not the process—something we understand particularly well. There will be a $1.2 billion pool for wage subsidies to support employers to provide job opportunities and assist job seekers into work—the first step. The government will also deliver a $331 million Youth Employment Strategy, an $18 million national work experience program and changes to Restart to make it easier for small businesses to receive government support when they employ older workers. Small business has been tasked by the coalition government to transform our economy as the proceeds and benefits of the mining boom taper as that investment phase turns into production. Small businesses are absolutely essential to the growth in our economy and the maintenance of our living standard. We started the job of helping small businesses by previously focusing on the reduction of red tape and other impediments, and we have continued by restoring incentives. In fact, this year's budget was the largest small business package we have seen in this nation's history. Unincorporated businesses have not been forgotten. Two-thirds of Australian small businesses are not structured as companies. That includes independent contractors, self-employed people and those working in partnerships or through trusts. Under the Howard government, this group provided 52 per cent of the private sector workforce opportunities, but under the Labor years the number had fallen to 43 per cent. Under those Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, 519,000 jobs were lost in small business. Nothing could be clearer than why we need the measures that we have taken. There were actually fewer small businesses employing people by the end of the Labor government in 2013 than was the case when the Howard government was in office. Small business needs a government in Canberra that is a partner, that understands them, that is an ally and that is an advocate for their interests, and that is what we are. Many of us are small business people ourselves. Implementing our election commitments has seen changes to the competitive landscape. We have seen unfair-contract-terms protections developed, reforms to franchising, the right to repair in the car industry and the idea that suppliers to our major supermarkets should be able to have a fair go and can be respected for their entrepreneurship as well. Recently, the World Economic Forum had us at 128th in the world in terms of overreaching and excessive regulation following those Labor years. This means that 127 other economies were less constrained, more nimble, more agile and better placed to adapt and embrace the economic opportunities within their reach. For the sake of the Australian small businesses, we have to do better. The government is committed to working with the tax office to make it more digitally engaged. We also want to streamline the business formation process. This government will allow your professional advice to be deducted as an expense rather than depreciated over five years, encouraging people to think about new avenues to finance. We have also addressed new opportunities in crowd sourced equity funding and delivered again for workers and businesses by rejuvenating those employee share schemes. There is a lot more to be done for small business, especially regional small business. But there is one thing about small business: they generally have a go and do their best to help themselves. Helping those who help themselves is a great outcome for all involved and for Australia. In the package that we have delivered as part of this budget, that is really important. One of those areas is in the delivery of broadband, which I have been working to help. Australia and my part of the world need better broadband sooner. We need to catch up to the major metropolitan centres and have access that has long been denied to us. We saw six years of nothing happening in my electorate under the previous government. We need to have businesses that can grow and compete, and for individuals, to allow an equivalent level of support. Labor in government failed to prioritise regional communities in the original NBN plan. Many regional areas with no broadband service were absolutely left behind, like mine, and had to watch as metro areas were upgraded and often over-built. Labor underestimated by a factor of 2 to 3 the number of Australians in remote and regional who wanted the NBN. That is easily demonstrated by the bungling of the NBN interim satellite service, which provides temporary internet access for premises in the metro fringe, regional and remote areas with no other way of getting broadband. In December 2013 the ISS reached its capacity of 48,000 customers, and registrations were closed. In 2014 Labor told 250,000 households and businesses, many with other broadband options, that they were eligible for the ISS. Tens of thousands were left demanding service but were unable to get it. Labor spent $355 million on the ISS—$7,300 per user—yet it delivers dial-up services to many. By comparison we have made unserviced and underserviced regions a priority. This coalition government is committed to rolling out the National Broadband Network as quickly as possible, at less cost to taxpayers, and more affordably to consumers. In nine months, for a start, the number of premises covered increased 65 per cent, and the rollout is proceeding using a multi-technology mix that matches the right technology to the right location and leverages the existing infrastructure. There are many reasons small businesses in my electorate and in others around Australia are very pleased with this particular budget. But, more importantly, they are pleased that what they do is actually valued and respected by this government. If you are in small business, with your head down and tail up, that is exactly what you want from your government. 19:17 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills. I thought I had best frame my response to Treasurer Hockey's budget by just quoting some of his words so that I, as a member of the opposition, can respond to what he has put to the Australian people and the Australian Parliament. Obviously, the Prime Minister and Treasurer Hocky have been out and said a few things loud and strong. The Prime Minister said: There is now a budget emergency. The Prime Minister also said: We've got to get the budget under control because right now, with debt surging towards $400 billion, frankly Labor has given us a budget emergency. The Prime Minister also said: … governments don’t seem to have grasped that you can’t solve a problem caused by too much debt and deficit with yet more debt and deficit. The Treasurer, the person who spoke on budget night, has also made comments. He said: I mean, we have been saying for years, that there is a Budget emergency; we have been saying for years that there is a major problem at hand. He also said: … it would have looked odd and it would have looked deceptive if we had come up with a Budget that just spent money and said to people, 'she'll be right' … I just wanted to start my response to the budget by quoting those things from the— I beg your pardon, Deputy Speaker, I think I actually have my notes from last year's budget reply speech, not this year's budget reply! I do apologise. I might just ask my companion, the member for Bendigo, if she is able to look for the correct speech because obviously I am quoting last year's quotes from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, not this year's budget reply speech. While the member for Bendigo is helping me out, I will just say a couple of nice things about the budget. I have the budget papers here in front of me so I will focus on something good that I know we all agree on, and that is obviously the Prime Minister's signature policy—the paid parental leave policy. That is no doubt something we can all agree is important. It is his signature policy and he announced it on Mother's Day, I seem to recall. He was all for paid parental leave—so I will just say a few good words about it being detailed in this budget paper. Moving on! It is a bit awkward here when you turn up without your notes and you realise that these things have changed from last year to this year! Obviously, last year was a budget emergency and now we see Australia's net debt is at $285 billion, higher than at any other point in Australia's history—under the Abbott government: unbelievable! And the deficit that was the budget emergency from last year at $17.1 billion; a budget emergency, and 12 months on what do we see? A deficit at $35.1 billion—unbelievable for a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who said there was a budget emergency. The Liberal Party and the Nationals are always saying that government spending is a bad thing. Well, let's have a look at government spending—a great measure according to the Liberal Party test of a budget as to whether the 2015 budget is a good thing. Spending is now at 26 per cent of our total economy. I repeat it, Deputy Speaker, because you might not believe it: 26 per cent of our total economy. The last time spending was that high was during the global financial crisis under Prime Minister Rudd. Yet under Treasurer Hockey and Prime Minister Abbott they have ratcheted up spending to 26 per cent of our total economy. Obviously, from the Liberal Party—always the party of small taxes, one would assume—in this budget, despite a clear promise before the election that there would be no new taxes, we see 17 new taxes. Tax is now at 22.3 per cent of our total economy, the highest it has been since John Howard was the Prime Minister. And when I say 17 new taxes I am not mentioning those other things like the divorce tax that I will come to later in my speech when I talk about my portfolio matters. The Prime Minister says he cares about jobs and he guaranteed that he could create one million jobs in five years. And yet here we are in their second year of government and we see in their own budget papers—these budget papers—that unemployment is predicted to reach 6.5 per cent. That is 800,000 Australians out of work, all of those households with the curse of unemployment. The last time we saw unemployment this high, predicted to reach 6.5 per cent, was when Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, was the employment minister—unbelievable! There were no surprises in the budget delivered on a Tuesday night a fortnight ago. It was as unfair as the budget that Treasurer Hockey brought down last year. It still hits the most vulnerable and arguably is even crueller than the 2014 budget. If you break down society into five quintiles you see that nine out of 10 people in the lowest quintile, the poorest households, will be worse off—nine out of 10. Then you flip it around and look at the highest quintile, the wealthiest quintile: nine out of 10 of those households will be better off. That is an un-Australian budget if ever there were one. It is un-Australian to attack the poor and give the benefits to the rich—that is not the Australian way. Not since Federation, not since the harvester decision—you would have to go back a long time to see an Australian society that benefitted the wealthy at the cost of the poor. In my portfolio, as shadow parliamentary secretary to the shadow Attorney-General, I am particularly interested in justice. I see that the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court are hit by this budget. The Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court are the engine room of the family law system. It is obviously more desirable for most of us to reach a settlement in a family law dispute by means other than having a judge make a decision. But, sadly, that is not always the case. There are many factors that can contribute to a dispute becoming intractable and to having lawyers involved. And family violence sadly is often a big factor. With that in mind, it is essential that parties in family law disputes are represented or can access appropriate legal assistance, that the court process is efficient, and that access to justice is not delayed due to courts being underresourced. I stress again the three things you need for a good justice system when it comes to family law: you need legal advice; you need efficient courts; and you need no delay. One of the most mean-spirited acts in this budget has been to hit couples who are experiencing a breakdown in their relationship with higher court filing fees, what I am calling a divorce tax. The Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, has not yet disclosed how much these fees will rise but it has been reported—in The Australian, I believe—that it may be as much as a 50 per cent fee hike. So it will cost people nearly twice as much to get a divorce, twice as much to apply to have a property settlement, twice as much to ask the courts to help in a family dispute involving domestic violence, and twice as much to ensure that children are safe and out of harm's way in a parenting dispute. The Liberal government is happy to pay $600 to a Public Servant to give a couple a $200 marriage voucher to keep a relationship together, but when things go pear-shaped, as they sadly do in 40 to 50 per cent of relationships, they will put brakes on that process, brakes that are especially harmful when there are children and/or domestic violence involved. It is not enough that the Attorney-General has hiked up court fees in the Family Court and the federal circuit court. What is most galling is that the extra funds harvested from the fee hike will not be going into an already underresourced court; instead, it will be going into the Treasurer's pockets, into consolidated revenue. This is nothing but a divorce tax on separating couples, exploiting those who have no choice but to resource to the courts after the unfortunate breakdown of their relationship. And the Family Court in particular—weighed down by the workload it is forced to cope with—currently has two judges fewer than when Senator Brandis took office. Senator Brandis has not replaced either of the Family Court judges who have retired since he became Attorney-General. What has he been doing? Reading the books on his bookshelf, maybe; deciding what artistic works will go on in Australia? Family Court judges have resorted to apologising to litigants in their judgements for the delay in delivery due to their workload. That is embarrassing. This is not a court that is underworked and overresourced. Statistics show that 40 to 50 per cent of marriages end in divorce. And that does not take into account de facto couples separating; they will also use the Family Court and the family circuit court. The workloads of both of these courts is not likely to decrease any time soon, yet we are two judges down. These courts need more resources, not fee hikes that go into the Treasurer's pocket, and they need these resources now. The Productivity Commission, the nation's bean counters, in their report Access to justice arrangements, delivered late last year, was scathing about delay. They heaped praise on the justice system, where it was due—particularly with community legal centres. We have not hear Senator Brandis talk about this report, even though it was handed to him. I do wonder if he has even read it. There is a whole chapter in that report dedicated to family law. The Productivity Commission says: 'It is clear that family violence is core business for the family law courts.' One of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission is, 'when resettling the impost on parties should not materially increase in cases concerning family violence'. Even the bean counters can see the implications of the fee hikes. In the 2013-14 year, 14.6 per cent of final order cases heard in the Family Court had filed a notice of child abuse or risk of family violence form. Clearly, any hike in fees for these courts is going to impact on this very vulnerable sector—family violence and children. The Productivity Commission recommends a whole swathe of measures to increase access to justice, including recommendations concerning community legal centres and legal aid, two other areas that Senator Brandis took his hatchet to in the budget. It was revealed last week that legal aid funding will also be cut. Legal aid in New South Wales is set to face a cut of $16.7 million over the next five years. Deputy Speaker Conroy, I know that will have implications for your electorate. There is a growing trend in the family courts for self-representation. They cannot afford lawyers. Many litigants find themselves not eligible for legal aid but also unable to afford representation, leaving them no choice but to represent themselves in any court proceedings. Any reduction in legal aid funding is going to increase the number of self-represented litigants in family courts. The Productivity Commission had something to say about this. They said: Lack of representation in family law matters can have particularly negative consequences where family violence is involved They went on to say: The importance of appropriate … representation can hardly be overstated in parenting cases, especially those that involve issues of family violence. Where one or both parties are unrepresented, even with the benefits of increased judicial involvement arising from Division 12A [of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)], it can be almost impossible for the court to receive the sort of evidence and argument that can lead it to make an informed decision about the child's best interests. Senator Brandis is putting at risk not only access to justice for adult litigants in the family courts but also the welfare of all those children whose fates are decided by these courts. Some litigants who have represented themselves in Family Court proceedings have had the benefit of seeking guidance from community legal centres along the way. I say 'some' because there is always far greater demand for the services of those centres than resources that the centres have to meet that demand. I know a little about the Brisbane Women's Legal Service, at Annerley in my electorate of Moreton. My partner and one of my staff members both do pro bono legal work at the Brisbane Women's Legal Service. They tell me that women line up hours before the doors are even open in the hope of securing a coveted place in the queue for the advice clinic. Many of these women and their children are turned away from each clinic. So, with the likelihood of a far greater number of self-represented litigants, there will be even more desperate family law clients seeking advice from these services. Ironically, Senator Brandis has also drastically cut funding for community legal centres, which are already the leanest of lean legal advice providers in the nation. Twelve million dollars a year will be cut from community legal centres from 2017. Coincidentally, that will take effect just after the next election. Reflecting on the importance that the Productivity Commission place on legal assistance services, the commission recommend that additional funding for legal assistance should be provided. The Productivity Commission—yes, those bean counters—estimate that the total annual cost of legal assistance to government should be $200 million, so it is hard to marry the Productivity Commission's recommendations with the actions of Senator Brandis. They are so far at odds that one must question whether Senator Brandis really did read that report—or he must be of the view that he knows better. Somehow, I believe he is arrogant enough to believe that. Next month, we will celebrate the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. The importance of access to justice was recognised 800 years ago in that field in Runnymede in England. Chapter 40 of that auspicious document, the Magna Carta, says: … to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice. Eight hundred years later, we have our Attorney-General, the most senior legal officer in the land, refusing and delaying justice through his mean-spirited cuts to legal aid and legal assistance services and his failure to fully resource the family law courts. We should not be surprised. In family law, it is often quoted that the best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour. The unfair budget of 2014 is well and truly reflected in the unfair budget of 2015. 19:33 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore I generally try to keep a positive outlook on everything I say in this House and chamber, but I simply cannot let the previous speakers get away with their absolute blarney regarding debt. The last speaker, in mock horror, talked of the projected debt. This figure is in stark contrast to the projected $667 billion that existed when we were elected to government. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Excuse me, I did not interrupt you once. That figure is now much reduced. We have dropped the interest payments from over $1 billion a day to approximately $800 million. This is still very serious debt, but at least it is trending downwards. Can those in opposition seriously expect the Australian public to believe their twist on the debt picture and say it is all the fault of the coalition? It is just as well that Australians are not so gullible. I ask the Labor Party to be a tad more respectful to Australians and not treat them as empty-headed vessels to be filled with Labor rhetoric. Australians are smart. They are savvy, and this untruth about debt level is actually quite appalling. Let me now move onto the best of the policies that are in place to both address the debt that Labor left us and work to make Australia a better place to live. The community of Gilmore has many different needs and yet is determined to forge ahead in as many directions as possible to make the region better. As a representative of government, sometimes there are really hard decisions to be made. Last year, we had to make some very tough decisions, but they really were in the best interests of Australia. Our core business is to take care of our economic security and our national security. In 2014, the world and Australia had to change the public alert level from medium to high because terrorism had increased. We have seen the rise of Daesh—or, under its other name, ISIL. We have been shocked by images of hostages beheaded. We were appalled by the kidnapping of innocent young women, and now we see some of our youth traipsing off to what they believe to be a big adventure aimed at world peace and social balancing. Really, if it were that easy, we would already have fixed the world completely. But instead these young people are used as scouts, suicide bombers and generally expendable foot soldiers. The coalition is investing an additional $1.2 billion in new funding for national security, adding to the $1 billion announced late last year. We will be investing in our national security, protecting our borders from terrorism and crime, taking steps to stop our youth from supporting or joining terrorist organisations, and making sure we have good communication with many different community groups so the information can be collected easily and acted upon. This expenditure includes $450 million to increase our intelligence capabilities. Also, we have increased our international liaison efforts, sharing knowledge and experience to counter this threat, which is a global phenomenon. We have allocated many millions to our Defence Force for equipment, training and increasing our enlistments. I am particularly pleased by this increased national investment as the local investment in HMAS Albatross is enormous, with over $3 billion for the 24 Romeo helicopters, $700 million for the Helicopter Aircrew Training System and $138 million for the initial structure. But this government is not just making sure that we feel safe in terms of the international scenario. The borders are being protected in many other ways. We have increased confiscations and arrests in association with the attempted illegal importation of ice and the ingredients of ice, contraband cigarettes and illegal firearms—and the list goes on. All of this would not happen without sustained investment in border control. We know that by stopping the boats we have prevented countless lives being lost at sea. This has meant that detention centres can be shut down, that due process can be applied for refugee intake, and that now we can rescue those poor souls who have been awaiting allocation to a host nation for many years. Refugees in United Nations camps have fled from war-torn nations and live in desperate conditions, waiting for their approved applications to be accepted by a host nation. But again it must be emphasised that a government must address all aspects of society. In Gilmore we have a wide mix of family structures, from custodial grandparents to struggling single parents to double-salary families with children. The families package in the budget has been designed to help people into work and to help them stay in work. We will be delivering over $4.4 billion to families, allowing a greater choice and flexibility for child care. Melinda Robertson from South Coast Nannies—who, incidentally, built up a great service business following the successful introduction of a new enterprise incentive scheme—is thrilled that nannies can be seen as an option. I recently spoke to some policewomen and Navy personnel, asking them how this would change their lives. All wanted to increase their hours of work, because flexible child care is so difficult to get. The nanny concept works for families who do shiftwork or have hours that do not fit with preschool or kindergarten times—speaking of which, I am proud to say that our government put early childhood education as a very important part of the investment spectrum for education. The allocation of $843 million to this essential policy commitment shows that this is a government that really cares. It means that young children in the year before school have a chance to get the basic learning skills they need. It is also an opportunity to identify potential learning, social or cultural difficulties so that the first year of school is more meaningful. Schools are able to anticipate student needs before students hit the classroom. This investment is a long-term strategy that assists our young children, helps their families and ultimately helps our society. In the big picture of protecting our economic society, we will be addressing a large number of concerns. Many people in Gilmore feel very strongly about the initiatives we have taken to address the issues of multinational tax avoidance. I would like to thank Joseph Thompson, Marty Richardson and the Culey family, who have been great advocates and supporters for this. They know it is a large global problem. They also know that it is a policy area that cannot be fixed overnight. Many in Gilmore have been concerned with the low thresholds before foreign investors have to notify the government, and we have taken steps to address that. In March, the screening threshold for agricultural land was lowered to $15 million, down from $252 million. There is also a new threshold of $55 million for agribusiness investment. This helps reassure people in Gilmore that we are screening to make sure investments are not contrary to our national interests. It is an interesting scenario that rolls out during question time, when those in the Labor Party screech out that we in government doubled the deficit. Most clear-thinking people in Australia know that budget policies and their associated expenditure are determined in May of each financial year. While Labor were still in government, they set huge levels of spending to occur in the 2013-14 financial year, believing, in their ignorance, that the mining tax was going to net billions of dollars. This crossed over the period after the election in September 2013. In fact, the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, often berates the now opposition by quoting back to them their folly of saying, 'You can bank on the billions of revenue.' This was absolutely not the case. Labor locked in future growth in spending that was simply unsustainable. If you put the proposed expenditure on a graph over time, you could have been forgiven for thinking that you were looking at the pathway to climb a mountain. Thank goodness for our national action to correct the economy. We the coalition have brought this steep debt growth down. It still is not completely addressed. We still have a lot to fix, but at least we are heading in the right direction. But this budget does more than address the overall national needs in terms of economic security. It addresses the very heart of growth for employment and financial growth. We have almost 9,000 businesses in Gilmore, with about 98 per cent listed as small business. The correct definition of such businesses is that they employ fewer than 20. I know from the different chambers of commerce and talking to my local business owners that the vast majority would actually have fewer than five employees. About 20 per cent of them are in construction; another 10 per cent are in rental hire or real estate; and about nine per cent are in the professional, scientific or technical areas. Last week was a busy time visiting retailers, cafes and other small enterprises in the Gilmore townships. The policy direction for small business has been almost universally welcomed by these business owners. It was a pleasure to talk about the 1.5 per cent tax cut for companies and the accelerated depreciation of business equipment worth less than $20,000. Some businesses had already invested, but the majority were inspired to consider how they could utilise this to benefit their business. Amy Richards, from JavaLife Mobile Cafe, has had a coffee van around Nowra for the last two years. She is looking at opening a drive-through coffee business. If trading conditions are right, the tax break on purchases up to $20,000 could result in her purchasing another van. During that week, I called on many other businesses, including John at The Point Pizzeria and Take Away; Liz from Cutting Point Hair Design, at Sanctuary Point; Amber from the Organic Day Spa; and Nikki at Nikki B's Vintage Collectables and Giftware, in Milton. Angela recently purchased the laundry service in Terralong Street, and I visited Julie from the Stone Wall Cafe in Manning Street, Kiama; the team at Milkwood Bakery; Ingrid Looman from Berry Beauty; and Ristin from Lickety Lick in Huskisson—all very enthusiastic, with great energy surrounding this initiative. A government cannot produce jobs. It cannot invent a new manufacturing plant, and it cannot offer to save a business through years of subsidy. But a government can work on the conditions of a strong economy and one that has potential for growth. When there is confidence around the economy, then businesses are more likely to employ people. They have more free capital to invest and more staff. This is an overall strategy to develop jobs growth. The current growth in jobs taken up is three times greater than it was during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. Small businesses gained very little during that period except perhaps very high electricity bills that meant they cut their casual employment numbers in order to pay the extra utility costs. Justine at Husky Bakery was literally jumping for joy when the carbon tax was repealed and she received her first post-carbon-tax-repeal electricity bill, which was down by more than $900. These actions by government all help to promote business growth and help put more cash flow into their systems. But all of us in Gilmore know that a job strategy for youth must be a part of the economic build. This government recognises that and has introduced extra policy initiatives to help inspire young people into work. We recognise that good employees can be the greatest asset for a small business, so recruiting and retaining the right people is a very important factor for business success. The Youth Employment Strategy is helping disengaged and young job seekers transition to work, and there are a number of ways that this is working. First, there is the new Transition to Work program to help young people aged between 15 and 21 who are not enrolled in education and are not in employment, to get them job ready, giving them pre-employment assistance in community based organisations. Already the local library in Shoalhaven is working on a plan with another fundraising community group to get computers and mentors into action, as they already know that this is a very important step for young people, and they do not often know where to turn for such assistance. Also, there is the new national work experience program, with access to voluntary work experience for up to 25 hours per week. The period is limited to four weeks for eligible job seekers. This will give the employers the opportunity to develop the skills of potential employees and test their suitability, while the job seekers will continue to receive their income support. Local business leaders in Gilmore have been keen to introduce this scheme. Such a part-time introduction to work gives a young unemployed person a real-life experience to help them decide if a particular workplace will suit. During the work experience, they will have income support so they do not need to reapply if the job does not work. If the work experience does lead to a job then the employer could be eligible to receive the youth wage subsidy, a $6,500 incentive for the business to hire such young people. For our young people aged between 18 and 30 who have been unemployed for more than 12 months, there is the job commitment bonus. You can get it in two instalments. If you get a job and keep it for 12 months, you get a nice $2,500 bonus. If you keep it for another 12 months, you get a $4,000 bonus. There are lots of young people who would see that that would be great. There will be a trial program to help young people and parents at risk of long-term welfare dependency, such as people from areas of entrenched disadvantage, to address their barriers to employment. Many in Gilmore are concerned about apprenticeships. Some employers have too many applicants while others cannot find a single one. On 1 July, the new Australian Apprenticeship Support Network will commence. This excellent initiative has the mission to match the right apprentice to the right employer to the training. We have about 1,800 apprentices in Gilmore and most of these are working out well. But not all apprentices complete their training, and this can happen due to a number of causes. But any avenue that can assist a young person to complete their apprenticeship is most welcome. This is a very welcome initiative to promote completion and ease navigation through a system that for some employers can be a little difficult. When the whole concept is to get more young people to complete their studies, the outcome is greater numbers of job ready trainees and apprentices. Overall, there are positive changes, responsive changes and strategies to assist more people through to a better outcome. We are still addressing the debt bill left to us. We are addressing the needs of families, especially in regard to child care. We are providing opportunities for small business to grow and employment strategies to assist our young Australians into work. It is a complicated business. The plans, the policies and the strategies certainly will not make everybody happy. Sometimes you have to have some people who think, 'That doesn't seem right,' and get an improvement for most Australians for most aspects of their lives. After all, we really do live in the best country in the world and we have the best lifestyle to match. So if you can get most of it right most of the time, you are doing all right. Thank you. 19:47 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I think this is the first opportunity I have had to appear before you, Deputy Speaker Conroy. I trust that you will do a fine job in this new role. I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills. This year's budget is clearly an attempt at a very short-term political fix, with no positive plan for innovation, growth or jobs. For those of us who remember the austere atmospherics around the budget of last year, think about what this budget does: it fails to address the very thing that they spoke about then which was a deficit. In fact, this year's budget seeks to double the deficit over the next four years. Compare that to last year's predictions. This government has certainly thrown a few sweeteners in to distract from some of the harsh and unfair measures that were in last year's budget, and I will come to that. But for members here, just pause and think that this budget is still has the $80 billion cuts to our health and education. It still has the changes to family payments that will see the average single-income family nearly $6,000 worse off. It still has university deregulation, which makes it a very real prospect of seeing $100,000 degrees. These things still very much impact on my community and, I suspect, many of the communities that members here represent. On the other hand, compare that to what Labor has put forward in terms of writing of the HECS debt for science, technology and engineering students, trying to encourage more students to train for the jobs of the future. That is something that is embracing innovation. That is something that is looking to the future. We are planning to invest in training thousands of new science and technology students, in bringing more digital technology to our schools and in our most important capital—that is, our people. I would suggest that that is looking to the future—investing in our people so that they can be trained and available for the jobs of the future. Those opposite are, quite frankly, all about cuts. There is certainly no vision and no plan. Very clearly, they have one eye firmly fixed on the next election. The Abbott government's second budget announced an $11.3 billion cut to Australian aid. This is the lowest recorded level as a proportion of our national income. These cuts will certainly hit some of the world's poorest countries pretty hard and put regional security at risk. Some of our closest neighbours, including the Philippines, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, are seeing their aid cut by 40 per cent. The most astonishing thing about this government's budget is its relentless attack on families, particularly young families. Just look at the derogatory terms that were used for mothers who want to spend precious time with their newborn babies. This is a new low for this government. Referring to mothers as 'rorters' and 'fraudsters' and accusing them of double dipping for simply accessing what was legitimately provided for in their industrial agreements and specifically singling out public servants was a new low for this government. There were cuts to family payments, including family tax benefit B stopping once the child turns six years of age, which will leave some families thousands of dollars worse off every year. As you would no doubt appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a new father, raising a child in today's world is increasingly expensive and many parents in this place will very much understand that. It is even more acute for single-income families, particularly families coming from low socioeconomic backgrounds. This budget does not discriminate; it is those people who are very much impacted by the harsh measures that were in last year's budget that flow through to this one. One thing that has also largely escaped the attention of many of the commentators is the abolition of the after hours GP hotline service. Again, that is fairly important for families. The triage services that offers were used by over 200,000 people last year—and that has just been cut. This budget is also very worrying for our young people, particularly vulnerable young job seekers. They will be forced off Centrelink support for a month before being eligible for any form of assistance at all. No matter how hard people try, sometimes it takes a little bit more than a month to secure a job. It is pretty scary to think that vulnerable people might be forced into various situations—some of them probably dangerous situations—trying to get by while receiving no support at all. Whether it is one month or six months, as was originally proposed, Labor is not prepared to stand by and watch young people being forced into poverty and hardship. This is clearly a budget, as I said, about the next election. It is certainly not one for the nation's future. Labor is happy to work with the government to ensure positive steps are taken, as was indicated with respect to small business. We take the view that we do not stop at a 1.5 per cent cut in tax or the reestablishment of the instant asset write-off. Whilst they are good things, they should not be the be-all and end-all, and it should not be on the basis that this only exists for the next prospective two years. Nevertheless, it is welcomed that these measures have found their way back in—but bear in mind that it was this government that abolished the instant asset write-off. Labor introduced the small business instant asset write-off. I recall the threshold of $6,500, as well as an accelerated depreciation mechanism. It also applied an initial deduction for motor vehicles. It is good that the Abbott government has decided to reintroduce that, and I think it is good that it is up to $20,000. It is a measure that we support and I think that many businesses will benefit from it. But for two years—this is not what is in order to stimulate growth in that sector and the provision of jobs. I am prepared to concede that this is probably the only positive sign from this year's budget. There are no encouraging steps other than that in looking at job creation. Many of the leading minds and organisations have had the opportunity now to review this budget and make comment on it. With respect to many of those that I have seen, their view is that this budget fails to plan for the future adequately. They say it is unfair. It certainly forces the most vulnerable in our community to bear the brunt of the cuts. For instance, the Australian Council of Social Service CEO, Cassandra Goldie, expressed that many of last year's harsh cuts are retained, that the budget attacks those on low incomes disproportionately and that it also fails to stimulate investment in jobs growth. The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations comments expressed great concern that 12 specialist organisations representing over 200,000 Australians with disability have not been funded under this budget. The Refugee Council of Australia commented that the budget was mean-spirited and short-sighted for its failure to respond to the world's growing humanitarian crises due to the unprecedented cuts to aid. They went on to say: Australia, one of the most affluent nations on earth, and one of the few very wealthy countries surrounded by developing countries, has a responsibility to its own people, to the region and to the international community to be a better global citizen. If Australia continues down this current path, the negative outfall of such arrogant policies will affect Australia’s security, trade and long term prosperity. World Vision CEO, Tim Costello, said these cuts put lives and the stability of Australia's immediate region at risk: It seems incredible that we should be willing to undermine the stability and security of our own region, hitting the area of closest and most immediate need and undermining our chances for future prosperity. A further comment comes from the chief executive officer of CPA Australia, who said that the small business package was one of the only high points in the budget and that it was evident the government had been spooked by the negative reception it got in 2014: … tonight’s budget lacks a real vision and commitment to the serious and overdue structural reforms that are desperately needed to secure Australia’s future. Clearly, greater investment in infrastructure is vital to improving productivity. It also provides a direct boost for economic growth and jobs. These are the very things that this government has simply not done and simply avoided in this budget. In the time I have left, I would also indicate my personal disappointment that this budget fails to reverse the $270 million in cuts to various community organisations and continues to plan on cutting the funding for legal and community services assisting victims of domestic violence. I was hoping that we had a bipartisan position in tackling this very serious issue. Instead of what we see, which is ever increasing short-term funding for family violence support services, the government should work on a long-term strategic approach in tackling this community pandemic. Earlier this year Labor proposed a bipartisan national crisis summit on family violence to work together to develop the best strategies, safety and support for the victims of this terrible scourge on our society. Recently I had the opportunity of meeting with Rosie Batty, the 2015 Australian of the Year, and one of our most passionate advocates concerning violence against women and children, to discuss the issue of family violence generally. Rosie spoke of the prevailing attitudes in our community that allow violence to continue. When you reflect upon the fact that one in three women will be a victim of violence in their lifetime and one in five will experience violence of a sexual nature, what is even more chilling is that every week two women are killed in Australia by a current or former partner. This is one of the most significant issues facing our community, and I will continue to encourage all men to make the commitment never to commit, to excuse or to remain silent on violence against women and children. In closing, I would like to briefly speak about something very close to home in my electorate: the government's commitment to proceed with the Badgerys Creek airport. Regrettably, during the planning stages the concerns of local residents have largely been ignored. The government has failed to ensure the same curfew that applies in Sydney Airport would be applied to Badgerys Creek. It has failed to outline clearly the infrastructure development plans, road and rail links to support increased traffic through our communities. It has failed to develop a plan for increased investment to attract new business opportunities into our area. Above all, it has failed to undertake an updated environmental impact statement and to engage in proper consultation with our community. This is a very significant aspect of development in Western Sydney and one for which the people of Western Sydney deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and be fully consulted by this government. 20:02 Dr STONE EM6 Murray I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills. As a member of the government I am so pleased to say that much of the work of this budget will support women's economic empowerment in Australia, such as from the small business initiatives, which are going to help what are often the first steps women take into the workforce—their small businesses and often sole trader enterprises—with the $20,000 immediate deduction for investments in their businesses. That is a very great thing for women. We have also put much additional effort into the business of helping women to address their victimisation in gender based violence scenarios. But I want to talk to you about the G7 and G20 summits this year. In Berlin I attended a forum where members of parliament from the G7 and G20 nations of the Northern Hemisphere sat down to look at how women were to be best supported and empowered across the globe. There were also several of us from the Southern Hemisphere to represent our region. The G7 and G20 summits this year prioritised the issue of women's participation in the workforce around the globe. This is of critical concern, as women in almost every country on average are paid less than men for the same work. In Australia this amounts to about 17 per cent and it is getting higher as time goes by. We still too often have to deal with the double burden of paid work and unpaid house work and caring, and women still often have to suffer from workplace harassment, discrimination and violence, which, of course, greatly impacts on their very ability to work. As well, unplanned pregnancies force millions of women and girls around the world to miss the opportunities of education and employment. This is particularly the case in our region of the Indo-Pacific, where there is often a significant number of young and forced marriages and a lack of knowledge of or access to sexual and reproductive health services. There is a growing body of research that demonstrates that these are not just issues that affect women. In fact, the denial of women's rights can be seen as critically impacting on a nation's economy. The Asia Pacific Parliamentary Group on Population and Development has brought together parliamentarians from our region for the past several decades to champion gender equality and women's rights to access sexual and reproductive health services. I am proud to chair the Australian chapter of this group. While we have seen progress on many fronts in the last two decades, progress has unfortunately been slow and we still have significant challenges in our region. In particular, global donations for reproductive healthcare products and contraception have slowed, perhaps in line with all other donations, but this is particularly concerning. The G7 and G20 summits this year provided us with further impetus to champion women's rights, restating that helping women to enter the workforce is not just good for women's empowerment and financial independence; it is good for the family, the household and the national economy. When half of a nation's population cannot realise its full potential to contribute to the community, to society and the economy, a nation suffers. The link between women's economic empowerment and development are well established. When women are economically empowered there is a greater reduction in poverty overall and increased opportunities for future generations. Women who are better educated and have greater control over their income are more likely to invest in the health, care and education of their children. Their children in turn are more able to access better employment opportunities and move into the formal economy. They are less often victims in their lives. In the Indo-Pacific region a lack of economic opportunities for women has significant economic costs in many countries. It is estimated that the region loses up to $US47 billion per year through the lack of employment opportunities for women and another $US30 billion per year because of gaps in education. In our region, female labour force participation is 23 percentage points lower than male labour force participation, and output per worker could increase by up to 18 per cent if women had the same work opportunities and access to productive assets as men in East Asia and the Pacific. It is ironic that while women do most of the hard work, particularly in food production, in East Asia and the Pacific, they are least likely to own title to that land or to be able to sell or buy it. While we do need to find ways to help women into the workforce, we also need to pay attention to the quality of the work that is offered to them. Although employment trends for women are increasing in the region, the quality of the work is not. Since the global financial crisis, the informal labour market has been increasingly feminised, meaning more women are working without protection, regular earnings and financial or personal security. They are more likely to be trafficked. The rate of vulnerable employment for women is consistently higher than for men, and only one per cent of women in the region run their own businesses with paid workers. In many cases, poor quality jobs can further disempower or marginalise women. Migrants, for example, including those who migrate from rural to urban areas in developing countries are particularly vulnerable. Migrant women have fewer support networks, may have fewer rights, limited access to services including health services, and may face discrimination because of the nature of their work, such as domestic or carer work. These women are more at risk of abuse, harassment and exploitation, facing multiple forms of discrimination based not only on gender but also on their class and ethnicity. We are also aware that many of our women in the Philippines, from Bangladesh, from parts of India, have to leave their own families and travel to other countries in order to be able to send funds home to support their own families. In the case of my daughter who lives in Singapore, the most marvellous woman has been employed with them for some five or six years now. She sacrificed her own expectation of marriage and children so that she can send back her earnings to look after her own mother and her eight brothers and sisters in the Philippines. Almost 21 million people are still experiencing forced labour or people trafficking across the globe each year, with over half of these people coming from the Asia-Pacific region. Fifty-five per cent of these victims are women and girls. Another critical barrier to women's meaningful participation in our region's workforce is their limited access to sexual and reproductive health services, and I have already referred to this. Two hundred and twenty-two million women around the world would like to delay or cease child-bearing but are not using any form of contraception. The demand for contraception is projected to grow by 40 per cent during the next 15 years. In the Asia-Pacific region, it is estimated that some 140 million women have an unmet need for family planning. The health benefits of family planning are considerable. It is estimated that family planning could reduce maternal deaths by 25 per cent, newborn deaths by 18 per cent and unintended pregnancies by over 73 per cent. Furthermore, enabling women to choose when to have a child and how often to have children gives women and girls the opportunity to complete their schooling or training, to earn a better living and so to escape poverty and abuse. Studies have shown that women who use family planning are generally more equal or empowered in their households and communities and more economically productive. Children in these households tend to be healthier, do better in school and grow up to earn higher incomes, which enhances economic independence. The lifetime opportunity costs of teen pregnancy have been estimated to range from one per cent of GDP in China to as much as 30 per cent in Uganda, measured solely by lost income. The real costs, of course, are much greater, and they are personal. In developing countries, pregnancy-related causes are the largest contributor to the mortality of girls aged from 15 to 19—nearly 70,000 deaths annually. We are also regularly and rightly shocked at the number of young girls who experience fistula in giving birth too young and often in a stunted or malnourished state. The incidence of fistula is not declining. In our region, there is a strong suspicion that the rates of female genital mutilation are increasing. This is of great concern when you think of the lifetime of health impacts from these forms of mutilation or cutting. It is extraordinarily concerning when we think that women and girls who have migrated or come as refugees from countries where this is a cultural practice may be returning to those countries to have this mutilation occur. Barriers to family planning are not limited to the availability of contraceptive methods. Millions of women and girls lack access to information on sexual and reproductive health; face social, economic or cultural barriers to accessing contraception; or face discrimination, coercion and violence. I am reminded of the problems of our Indigenous girls and young women who try to use implants as contraception in our remoter communities and who are then often called 'sluts'; the implant is called a 'slut stick'. Those girls are believed to be promiscuous if they are using one of these forms of contraception, and their male partners or boyfriends often insist that they remove that form of contraception. This is a serious problem for those women and girls. It is also obvious that the men in that community have not been properly educated or engaged in the whole matter of contraception for their partners, wives or daughters. Violence against women causes more death and disability among women aged from 15 to 44 than war, cancer, malaria and traffic accidents combined, affecting one out of every three women globally. The World Bank has estimated the cost of violence against women to be between 1.2 and 3.7 per cent of a nation's GDP. This includes the direct costs, such as medical expenses, crisis services and legal services; indirect costs, such as the impact on productivity and earnings because of death, injury or disability; and the costs incurred, hopefully, when the perpetrator is incarcerated. Not included are the psychological and social costs to the woman, which may last generations, as children who are exposed to such violence will continue to suffer from the trauma or may even become victims or perpetrators themselves. In Australia, as the previous speaker reminded us, at least two women are murdered by intimate partners each week. This is a national tragedy and a disgrace in a nation like ours. It is up to all of us in this place to ensure that we do all we can to not just legislate appropriate sanctions but fund appropriately information and education to protect the victims of this violence. We have to educate men that it is not a masculine agenda to force their own sense of inadequacy and need to express their power over another through bashing, assaulting, harming or even murdering their female partner. Official development assistance, globally, sometimes called overseas foreign aid, is now dwarfed by private flows of funds to developing countries. These private flows in and out of a country may be related to mining, forestry, the tourism sector or some other part of the economy. The private sector can embrace their corporate responsibility, particularly in female-dominated sectors like the garment trade and hospitality industries, where conditions are traditionally poor. We all recall the tragic fires that swept through the sweatshops in Bangladesh. The private sector can empower female employees by investing in better employee protection and training and by leveraging their influence to strengthen domestic policies—and they should. We have to ensure that consumers or customers of those products understand where they were made, who made them and under what conditions. It is up to each of us as consumers to ensure we do not buy products that have as their creators women who are victims. Australian companies often lead the way here, and I am proud to say that illicit flows out of developing countries are recognised by Australia as another huge problem. We, in the United Nations, have championed the identification of this problem of illicit flows or corruption, and we are trying to assist many of our neighbours in developing stronger governance, law and order, customs and tax regimes to capture the legitimate flows of funds in their countries for their own country's use. Poverty in our regions is often in some of our richer neighbours with strong and affluent middle classes. We also have to help those nations to better distribute their income to those most in need. I want to end by saying that in our region we have some two-thirds of the world's poverty, but only one-third of the aid flowing. Australia more than pulls its weight. I am very proud to be part of a government that is recognising what needs to be done in our region and is providing that support conscientiously and in partnership with our neighbour nations. I commend the bills to the House. 20:17 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise tonight to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and related bills. At the core of this budget is a gaping emptiness of purpose. It is all about the politics of yesterday—not facing up to the challenges of our future. This budget does not set a path to a better life for Australians. It does not even have regard to what that might look like. This is a budget by a government that has no faith in the Australian people. It does not share their aspirations for themselves, their families, their neighbours—our future. This is its most egregious failing. A budget should set out clearly the direction of a government and for a country. But here we have to sift through incoherence and inconsistency to find these threads. We have come a long way from the budget emergency of last year and still further away from the promised surpluses. This is a budget of political calculation, but it is underpinned by ideology as soon as you scratch the surface. Make no mistake, this is a government determined to lead us to a more unequal society. We see this in the government's attempts to turn Australians on one another. The lifters-and-leaners rhetoric has been reframed, but the obsession with dividing Australians remains. This is a crucial point in understanding this budget. It is essentially a rebadging job of the previous budget. Let us not forget that the only concession the Abbott government was prepared to make on last year's disastrous and divisive budget was that there had been a poor sales job—the selling, not the substance; not its devastating effect on communities and the state of the national economy. We see this in the fact that so many of the spending measures in this budget are predicated on the cuts in last year's budget being passed by the Senate. The $80 billion worth of cuts to health and education are still there, $100,000 degrees are still there and the GP tax by stealth lurks menacingly in the background of every visit to a primary health care service. Labor acknowledges, of course, that our economy faces significant challenges—as we did when Labor were in government. The Leader of the Opposition's budget reply spoke to jobs of the future, innovation, the challenges of education and the importance of our cities. The Abbott government could and should have risen to this challenge too, but instead we see in this budget, the subject of these bills, an opportunity missed to make the most of Australia's opportunities to confront the challenges we face—rising inequality most especially. As the economy deteriorates under the government's watch, inequality is becoming more acute. However, instead of trying to stem this flow, the government seem determined to exacerbate the problem. With the release of NATSEM modelling, we have seen the true impact of the government's budget on Australian families. Of course, this is modelling that should have been set out in the budget itself. This is a telling omission and it is easy to see why they are hiding it. For the second year in a row, the government's budget consolidation is being made at the expense of the less well off. NATSEM has found that the poorest 20 per cent of households with children will lose up to 7.1 per cent of their total disposable income over the next four years after all budget measures have been taken into account. This amounts to over $6,000 a year by 2018-19. In contrast, high-income families will actually see their disposable incomes increase slightly over the next four years. It is a deja vu budget all over again: the least well off are doing all the lifting while the most well off are being lifted. Dave Oliver from the ACTU nailed it today: 'Trickle up.' It is also telling that the Abbott government, rather than engaging on the substance of the NATSEM report, sought to attack the organisation and even went so low as to attack a member of the opposition's staff. This shows the level of desperation and deceit from this government. We saw earlier this week the government seek to besmirch those who rely on family payments as being somehow hopelessly welfare dependent. The Minister for Social Services remarked: The NATSEM model takes no account of those impacts of people being able to earn a wage rather than earn welfare. When unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment, is rising, surely this is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make—when the government has no plan for jobs. While he and his colleagues spent plenty of time before the budget talking up fairness, these were clearly just empty words. This was reinforced yesterday in the parliament. The Prime Minister was so unconcerned about the unfair impact of his decisions on families in Page that he pivoted straightaway, shamelessly, to the rhetoric of 'Stop the boats', while the minister, heedless of projections of increasing unemployment, hubristically boasted of the 'choices' opened up into work. It is no surprise that ReachTEL polling today shows voters unconvinced of the government's efforts on jobs and job security, but it would appear that with this government secure work only matters in relation to the tenure of the Prime Minister and his Treasurer. The only difference between this year's budget and the last is that this time the cuts are buried in the fine print. When the government was talking about needing to do a better sales job, this is clearly what it meant. Nowhere are these cuts owned up to by ministers or the Treasurer. It should not have to take separate independent analysis by the likes of NATSEM to uncover the true nature and hidden intent of a budget. I suspect that the post-budget bluster and bravado that has been on show will fade, as it did last year, as people work out that they have been sold a lemon, yet again, by this government. Not only that but this government is so bereft of vision and values that it simply does not deserve to be in power; it does not deserve the stewardship of the Australian nation and the Australian economy. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 20:24 to 20:36 Mr GILES 243609 As far as vision went, the best the government could come up with was another three-word slogan: 'Have a go.' As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, all this budget does is to have a go at schools, hospitals and families. It has a go at those out of work, or those in insecure work. The conflicted and inconsistent economic policies are truly baffling. At one point the Treasurer indicated he wished to engage in bipartisan discussion around closing superannuation loopholes. Indeed, the Assistant Treasurer stated on Sky News: … you can't look at any of these individual issues in isolation. You have to look at the broader system, and how the superannuation system impacts upon the pension and is affected by the tax system. But a week or so later the Prime Minister shot them both down and refused to engage in any such discussion. However, I note in last week's Financial Review that there are still some in the coalition who seem to be pushing for changes to be made. Who knows how successful they will be? Is this another signature policy of the Prime Minister signed with his notorious magic ink? The Prime Minister was adamant earlier this week during question time that there would be no further changes, but frankly he has been just as adamant on so many issues before and then backflipped. It is impossible to say for certain. The one pattern, though, is that if the cuts make those on low and middle incomes worse off then this government will persist in that move. What it will not do—what it is incapable of doing, it seems—is to tackle the lurks and perks of the well off. On this basis I am inclined to believe that the Prime Minister will carry the day and protect those most well-off superannuants, as he has always done, at a great cost to our budget, as well as to equity and our sense of social justice. I note that recent modelling has shown that in four years superannuation concessions will outstrip the cost to government of the age pension—within four years. It beggars belief that this government would attack those on low and middle incomes but not lift a finger to slightly adjust these concessions enjoyed by the wealthy. I am proud that the Australian Labor Party has shown leadership in this area. It is important that all the burden of reducing the deficit does not fall on those least able to carry it. Under this government we have seen unemployment go up and consumer confidence go down. Bizarrely, the Prime Minister has stated that consumer confidence had in fact gone up. But, of course, the figures do not lie. At the 2013 federal election, consumer confidence was recorded by Westpac at 110.6. It is now 102.4 At the 2013 federal election, consumer confidence was recorded by the ANZ at 122.3. It is now 111.3. A minor up-tick in the sugar hit of the budget has not turned this around. It is little wonder that consumers have so little confidence. They can have no confidence in this government to protect their interests or indeed in its budget projections, beyond demonising those who cannot find work when unemployment is forecast in the budget to continue to rise, to rise to unacceptable levels beyond the 800,000 Australians presently out of work and looking for work. We also see very curious numbers in respect of forecast for household consumption, which sit of course very uncomfortably, to be most generous, with the unemployment figures and more so with the record low wages growth. And, of course, the budget projections of a sustainable path to surplus are founded on, amongst other things, growth projections that seem little more than wishful thinking, as some very helpful articles by Michael Pascoe and Greg Jericho have set out in the past week. The small business package in the budget, which has been highlighted as something of a centrepiece, does contain some suitable and appropriate measures. Indeed, it is pleasing to see a return to Labor's instant asset write-off—unfortunately, a policy abandoned by this government when it came into office. So it is pleasing to see this policy adopted belatedly. But its implementation and, indeed, wider priorities raise some additional issues. A $20,000 write-off for tradies and other small business people is one thing. But what about that tradie and that small business person when their youngest child turns six and the impact of the horrendous cuts to family payments? What about the partner of that tradie or that small business person when she wishes to access the maternity leave that she bargained for with her employer which complements the government scheme that exists, the Labor scheme as it was intended to operate? What happens to that small business person and that tradie when he or she wants to visit the GP and has to pay for that privilege, as government members would apparently see it? What about that small business person who does not want to spend most of his or her time stuck in traffic? Where is this government's cities and urban policy, another notable omission from the government and another stark contrast with Labor, which is concerned with the circumstances of the four in five Australians who live in our cities and the 80 per cent of our gross domestic product which is generated in those cities? Here we have a central oddity. We have a self-described infrastructure Prime Minister in Prime Minister Abbott, who says that he is leading an infrastructure government. But declining spending on infrastructure over the forward estimates tells a very different story, a very different story in raw numbers about this government's priorities in terms of productive investment and a very different story in terms of the priorities to which those investments are applied. Instead of really having an infrastructure government, this Abbott government is hamstrung by both politics and ideology, and blind to the realities of modern Australia, an Australia which is the most urbanised country in the world where 80 per cent of Australians live and work in cities. Yet again and again, this government fails them not just in this budget, which pretends our cities do not exist, but every day. As a Melburnian and a Victorian, I feel this most acutely. The Abbott government has slashed Victoria's infrastructure grants by $3 billion and this contempt for Victorians is compounded by the Treasurer's sleight of hand through his so-called locked box of moneys, apparently to go towards a toll road that Victorians voted against in the state election in November last year—an election described by the Prime Minister as a referendum on this toll road. It is extraordinary. This government, having made this issue a signature issue, continues to defy the will of the Victorian people, but also to defy the views of the experts and to defy the views of Infrastructure Australia, who saw the Melbourne Metro project as the No. 1 project on the list. It is a critical project to change the way the people in Melbourne live and how they work. It is critical to unlocking the productivity of this great city that I live in. It is also critical to its sustainability and it is critical to its livability, particularly to people in the outer northern suburbs of Melbourne, the people whom I am privileged to represent in this place. I have to say that no area of policymaking sums up the incoherence and inconsistency of this government more than its approach to paid parental leave and child care, two extraordinarily important challenges for our country. The Prime Minister has, of course, had a kaleidoscopic array of positions on these policy areas. After attacking mothers for legitimately using a scheme he was previously in favour of, the Prime Minister is now seeking to pull the rug out from underneath thousands of mothers who simply want to spend as much time with their newborn babies as possible. Even worse, adding insult to injury, is the Abbott government holding childcare funding ransom to his attacks on these mothers, dividing mothers against one another. That is not what Australians should have to put up with from their own government. In closing, this budget discloses that this government has no vision for Australia's future. It is also a budget which is filled with contempt for Victorians and does nothing for the people of Melbourne's northern suburbs. (Time expired) 20:45 WYATT ROY M2X Longman It is a great honour to rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and other appropriation bills. It is great to follow the former speaker, who talked about what this government is doing on infrastructure. This government has the country's largest infrastructure agenda. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you and I—both Queenslanders—know how important that vital infrastructure, particularly road infrastructure, is for our growing and very big state. I want to go through a couple of these big initiatives locally. To start with, the biggest one, which I think will clear a big bottleneck of traffic jams as we head south from my electorate towards Brisbane, is the Gateway Motorway. So many of the daily commuters in our community know the challenges of that bottleneck between Nudgee and Bracken Ridge. This government is putting $1.16 billion into widening that section of the Gateway Motorway from four lanes to six lanes, which will make a very big difference. This government is also investing $8 billion in the Bruce Highway, the lifeblood of our local region, the key economic driver and the road that facilitates the greatest amount of movement around our community. We are putting $8 billion into the Bruce Highway across Queensland. Three billion dollars of that is going from the Pine Rivers through to Gympie. So there is over a billion dollars into the Gateway up to the Pine Rivers, and then over $3 billion into the highway from Pine Rivers through to Gympie. That is upgrading a whole range of things, but one particular example I want to jump on is the Boundary Road overpass. So many locals know the challenges that we face there. This government is committing $84 million, in conjunction with the state government. It was a bit of an effort to get the new state Labor government to commit to that, but they are adding about $20 million extra to that project, bringing it up to about $105 million to build a six-lane overpass at Boundary Road. That is the sort of practical congestion-busting initiative that we are putting into the Gateway and the Bruce Highway. The other road that locals know is so important to our region is the D'Aguilar Highway. The D'Aguilar Highway has caused far too many tragedies over far too many years. When I first campaigned for parliament in 2010, I made a commitment to fix the worst black spots on the D'Aguilar Highway. Of course, it is a state government road, but we said that we would commit funds to that because of the tragic loss of life on that road. Every local knows that story. At the time, the Labor member—the person that I beat at the subsequent election—said that it was impossible to do that. He said that that would take all the funds from Queensland and that the Labor Party was not interested in doing that or it could not be done. Well, we did not win that election. I continued to campaign, to lobby and to call on the federal Labor government and the state government to put money towards the D'Aguilar Highway. They did not do that, but at the 2013 election I made another commitment of $16 million to the D'Aguilar Highway. I am really proud to say that we are doing what the Labor Party said could not be done. We have allocated that $16 million in the budget. We have committed to that. The design work and geotechnical work has already been done on those vital upgrades to the D'Aguilar Highway. That project has now gone out to tender and we expect construction to start later in the year. That is such a vital improvement for our region. Ultimately, the responsibility rests with the state government. But where they have not acted, I am really proud of the fact that we have stepped in. Ultimately, these upgrades will save lives. Talking about black spots across other parts of the region, we have committed over $3.4 million to local black spots in the Longman electorate in our local community. That includes, for example, upgrading 500 metres of the Pumicestone Road, which is an incredibly dangerous section of the road. These are really practical things where, again, it is not a Commonwealth government road but we have stepped in with some extra funds to help save lives. I think that many locals will appreciate that significant upgrade. We have also committed over $20 million to our region through the Moreton Bay Regional Council for Roads to Recovery. Essentially, this is where the Commonwealth government comes in and gives additional funds to local councils so that they can upgrade their roads, which deals with those annoying maintenance issues that we face on our local roads. That is a very significant injection. In the next year, we are doubling the payment that the Moreton Bay Regional Council will receive through Roads to Recovery to do, again, what is essentially their job. This will give them a big financial boost. Next year, with that doubling payment, they will get over $6 million to go in to the maintenance of local roads. The other thing that we should be discussing in these appropriation bills is, of course, jobs. In our local community, the unemployment rate has been too high for too long. We all know that the big creators of prosperity and the creators of employment in our region are not people here in Canberra. It is not bureaucrats. It is not the government. It is locals who are prepared to go out there, to have a go, to have a small business or start a small business, to grow that business and to employ more people. When you have a society that is big and a government that is small I think that you can create greater jobs growth and greater prosperity for our nation. That is why these initiatives include the largest package for small businesses that our country has ever seen. The biggest part of that is the $20,000 instant asset write-off measure, which has received an enormous amount of media. Essentially, since budget night, local businesses can go out, purchase that piece of equipment that they might need to grow their business, to make them more productive, to help lift their productive capacity in that business and they can write that off against their taxable income, which is a massive initiative. Many local businesses have been speaking to me and saying how big a difference that will make. As they grow those businesses, they will be ultimately putting on more people. We have also included a 1½ per cent company tax rate for incorporated companies, something that has been needed for a long time, and a five per cent tax discount for those unincorporated companies, and, of course, we are continuing to slash red tape as we promised to do. When local businesses are not spending hours or days on bureaucratic red tape or putting on extra staff to deal with bureaucratic red tape and we are getting that hassle out of their life, they can do the thing that they do the best, which is to go out there, grow their business and employ more people. We have achieved over double the target that we set when we went to the election. We have already reduced red tape in the first year by over $2 billion. A lot of that red tape reduction, I am really proud to say, has come from our local community, where local businesses have come to me. We have taken it up with the government and we have been able to remove the red tape that is actually stopping them from growing their businesses and employing more people, and you can feel it when you are talking to these local businesses. They are prepared to go out there and to have a go. That will be what drives the future prosperity of our region and future jobs growth. We have interest rates at record lows. We have the dollar coming down, and we have these fantastic initiatives that will help businesses to be their best selves, to go out there and to grow their businesses. If you look around our region, you have got some really big projects that will kick-start local jobs growth. You have got the Sandstone Point Hotel, which will be opening next weekend, creating enormous jobs growth in our area. You have got North Harbour, which has been delayed for far too long out there. It is a massive project across the course of several decades. Their economic modelling shows it could create up to 20,000 direct and indirect jobs. You have a great local story just recently where Airwork Helicopters has just had CASA approval to create rotor blades for Bell Helicopter, a world leading innovation and technology in the heart of Caboolture. They have said that they are going to grow their business by up to 20 staff. So there is something special about how we are creating those new jobs in our region. Ultimately, as I said, that comes from the private sector. It comes when we get government out of the life of these local entrepreneurs so that they can grow their businesses. But, when we have these new jobs, what is important is that we have a pathway for these locals to find these new jobs, because you can have the jobs, but, if people are not skilled up, if they are not ready, if they do not have the right requirements or the right qualifications, or even the right connection and networks to find those jobs, we cannot get people into those jobs. So we have an enormous initiative or drive to help that employment growth. We are spending $6.8 billion on revamped Job Active employment services, an enormous expenditure. In these measures we have $1.2 billion for a national wage subsidy pool to help those employers put on those staff, particularly the long-term unemployed. I will give you just one example, Mr Deputy Speaker, of where this wage subsidy will help employers to have that incentive to take on that new staff member. If you are an employer hiring somebody who is under 30 and has been on income support for six months, you can expect to receive $6½ thousand over 12 months for taking on that new person, which is obviously a huge incentive to help that business take on that new job seeker. The other thing that I think is really important, as I said, is that we are providing that pathway for people to find that employment and that very individualised support to get them job ready or to find that job and actually get into employment. So this budget and these initiatives put aside $212 million for a youth Transition to Work program and $106 million for intensive support for vulnerable job seekers. Essentially, these two initiatives empower local organisations which have that local knowledge to give that very intensive, individualised support so that that local person can go in there, find that job and have the right skill set to do that. This will make a massive difference to people in our community and to unemployment in our community. This is on top of the initiatives we have already announced and have been delivering. The job commitment bonus, one I have spoken about many times in this place, is for job seekers aged 18 to 30. They will be paid $2,500 if they can secure a job and remain in continuous employment for 12 months, and an additional $4,000 is available if they stay in employment for another year. That is a huge incentive. If you come off welfare and you go and find a job, there is a very significant financial incentive to do that. We know that often people have to move to find a job, and we have been delivering our relocation assistance. If people are moving to take up that job, we will give them that financial incentive to help them do that. If you are relocating from a regional centre to a capital city, there is $3,000 in assistance for you to do that. If you are going the other way, out to a regional centre, there is $6,000 for you to do that. And of course, if you are relocating with a dependent child, we will give you another $3,000 on top for that. We have been rolling out Work for the Dole locally as well. There is obviously a social contract and a meaning to that initiative. But what I have noticed and I think is really important is that it provides unemployed people with access to a real job, to network and meet real people, to put something that is real and meaningful on their CV. It helps them find that pathway into employment as well. We have also increased better access to diplomas, advanced diplomas and TAFE by essentially saying that, if it is good enough for universities to have a HECS style system, it is good enough for diplomas, advanced diplomas and TAFE. You do not pay a dollar up front on your TAFE fees or your diploma fees, so you can get those skills or those qualifications to make you more employable. We have rolled out the Green Army initiative, and I went out and visited the Green Army initiative in Burpengary, which was an absolutely amazing thing to do. There were these great young people from very different backgrounds. Some of them were university graduates and some of them had been working in construction or different areas and had found themselves unemployed and looking for work. The Green Army was giving them, again, real-world experience and real connections to the people that they would need to find future employment and was actually helping them find jobs. Some of them already had jobs lined up for when they finished their Green Army initiative. The other initiative which has been very popular is our trade support loans. Again, if it is good enough for someone going to university, or if it is good enough for someone going to do a diploma, advanced diploma or TAFE level qualification, it surely must be good enough for our young tradies and apprentices to have a similar HECS style system. Our trade support loans will give them $20,000 up front. As we know, it is very hard for these people to get through that first part of the apprenticeship. This will give them an enormous support to complete their apprenticeship. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are doing absolutely everything we can to create the jobs that we need in our community and to ensure that locals have every opportunity to get those new jobs. I commend these bills to the House. Debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:00 . QUESTIONS IN WRITING 139 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Indi Electorate: Digital Radio (Question No. 698) 139 698 Ms McGowan 123674 asked the Minister for Communications, in writing, on 9 February 2015: (1) When will digital radio be available for residents in the electoral division of Indi. (2) Are there technical, regulatory, commercial or economic reasons why digital radio is not currently available to Indi residents; if so, (i) what are the reasons; and (ii) how does the Government intend to deal with them. Mr Turnbull 885 the answer to the member's question is as follows: (1) Under the existing legislative framework, digital radio has been introduced in Australia in a staged manner. Digital radio services were first introduced by radio broadcasters in areas where they are most likely to be commercially viable. For this reason, the initial rollout of services focused on the five mainland state capitals, with trials subsequently established in Canberra and Darwin. It is primarily a commercial decision for broadcasters whether to extend digital radio services to regional licence areas. The Government is not aware of any broadcaster plans to extend digital radio services to the Indi electorate in the short to medium term. (2) (i) Once an area is identified by broadcasters, the Government will then consider a range of matters including the availability of spectrum and whether funding for the national broadcasters needs to be considered. Extending digital radio into regional areas will also involve a complex technical planning process for the Australian Communications and Media Authority. This is because the technology currently used in Australia to deliver digital radio services, and the spectrum available for such services, will not enable them to match the coverage of all existing analogue radio services in all areas, particularly AM. (2) (ii) In order to consider the issues surrounding digital radio more closely, the Department of Communications is currently conducting two statutory reviews into digital radio services in Australia, which will consider the regulatory regime and technologies. I expect to report to Parliament on the reviews shortly. National Rugby League: Health (Question No. 756) 139 756 Mr Katter HX4 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 26 March 2015: (1) Could she contact the National Rugby League (NRL) regarding the most dangerous development in the game where a player was allowed to be spear tackled, clearly visible on video replay, and not punished. (2) Is she aware that this (a) was a third time attack and made with the intent of seriously harming a leading play maker, Mr Jonathon Thurston, where the perpetrator put his right arm under the chest of Mr Thurston and his left elbow upon the back of Mr Thurston's neck, and (b) was an attack with the intent to ensure that Mr Thurston's head and neck would take the full impact of the spear tackle. (3) Is she aware that two years ago a player had his back broken (albeit unintentionally) in a similar tackle and has been crippled for life. (4) Is she aware that in Mr Thurston's case this tackle was done with aforethought and intent and that this same player earlier in the game had shoulder charged Mr Thurston a good second after he had passed the ball (illegal) and earlier still, had bashed Mr Thurston's face into the ground with such force that he could not see out of that eye for the rest of the game. (5) Is it the responsibility of the Minister for Sport to ensure "the game" and the competition are played in a right and proper manner which is beneficial to the sport and the Australian community and does not endanger the sport or the individual. (6) Given that no one's interest is served by thuggery, brutality and blatant danger to life and limb, could she ensure that the judiciary and or the NRL reply to her satisfaction and that of the Government and the Australian people. Ms Ley 00AMN The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (6) The Australian Government is committed to ensuring all Australians are able to participate safely in sport, including at both the grassroots and elite level. Our sports governing bodies are responsible for the development and implementation of all rules and codes of conduct related to their sport, including those pertaining to player safety. Typically these evolve and are amended as new practices emerge on the field of play. Any violations to these rules are considered by the governing body through appropriate judiciary processes. These processes are intended to be both a punishment and deterrent. I have written to the Chief Executive Officer of the National Rugby League, Mr David Smith, seeking the National Rugby League's consideration of these recent dangerous developments on the field of play. I trust that the National Rugby League will consider any matters in contravention of the rules of the competition that pose any undue risk to athletes through appropriate judiciary processes to ensure the game continues to remain safe and enjoyable for all participants. I would also add more broadly that my discussions with the NRL have highlighted their commitment to participant safety at all levels of the game. However, vigilance in relation to player safety and the protection of all involved should be a fundamental concern for all sports.